Premium
Outcomes of three different new generation transcatheter aortic valve prostheses
Author(s) -
Costa Giuliano,
Buccheri Sergio,
Barbanti Marco,
Picci Andrea,
Todaro Denise,
Di Simone Emanuela,
La Spina Ketty,
D'Arrigo Paolo,
Criscione Enrico,
Nastasi Marco,
Sgroi Carmelo,
Tamburino Corrado
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.28524
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , stenosis , propensity score matching , aortic valve stenosis , retrospective cohort study , prosthesis , cohort , surgery
Aims To evaluate outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF‐TAVI) using three different new‐generation devices. Background Although new generation transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) have demonstrated to improve procedural outcomes, to date few head‐to‐head comparisons are available among these devices. Methods This is a single center, retrospective study. From September 2014 to February 2018, 389 patients underwent elective TF‐TAVI for native, severe aortic stenosis using a new‐generation transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) with a preprocedural multi‐detector computed tomography assessment. Among these, 346 patients received an Edwards SAPIEN 3 ( n = 134), Medtronic Evolut R ( n = 111), or Boston ACURATE neo ( n = 101) prosthesis. Differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups were accounted using the propensity score weighting method. RESULTS The mean age for the entire study cohort was 81.4 ± 5.2 years while the Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality was 4.0 ± 2.5%. After propensity score weighting adjustment, TAVs did not differently impact on 30‐day all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality. Evolut R device showed an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after the procedure (8.3% for SAPIEN 3 vs. 16.7% for Evolut R vs. 2.1% for ACURATE neo, p < .05). At 30 days, patients treated with SAPIEN 3 valve showed a higher mean transvalvular gradient (9.7 ± 7.5 mmHg vs. 6.1 ± 2.4 mmHg vs. 8.4 ± 3.5 mmHg for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01) and a lower rate of more‐than‐trace paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (18.8 vs. 47.9 vs. 45.8%, for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01). At 1 year, SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo TAVs showed excellent and comparable outcomes with no difference in terms of freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) ( p log‐rank = 0.534). Conclusions TAVI using new‐generation prostheses was associated with high device success (97.0% vs. 92.8% vs. 95.0% for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R and ACURATE neo, respectively) and low complications rates up to 1 year. Evolut R valve was associated with a higher rate of PPI whereas SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with a higher mean transvalvular gradient and lower rate of more‐than‐trace PVR. At 1‐year, MACCE rates were similar among the three groups.