Comparison of Procedural and 1-Year Clinical Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using Prostheses with Different Design of Support Frame.

Our study aimed to investigate whether the frame design of transcatheter heart valve (THV) affects the procedural and clinical results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).We retrospectively reviewed 163 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI using different types of THV (Edwards SAPIEN, n = 31; Venus-A, n = 63; and J-Valve, n = 69). The procedural outcomes and follow-up results for 1-year were compared among groups.The patients who underwent TAVI using J-Valve had a higher mean transaortic pressure gradient than those using SAPIEN or Venus-A after TAVI (1-year follow-up; P = 0.017, P < 0.001, respectively), whereas no difference was observed between the patients with SAPIEN and Venus-A prosthesis (P = 0.150). The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was highest in patients with Venus-A (19.0%), followed by SAPIEN (9.7%), and lowest in J-Valve (4.3%) (P = 0.025). No difference was observed in the 30-day mortality rate among the groups (P = 1.000). Moreover, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the 1-year cumulative patient survival rate among three patient cohorts (log-rank, P = 0.850).The frame design of THVs could affect the valve-related hemodynamics and the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in TAVI, whereas it did not influence the survival rate of TAVI patients during 1-year follow-up period. All three THVs provided a convincing short-term outcome for TAVI patients.