Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023
Multicenter comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rheude Tobias, Pellegrini Costanza, Landt Martin, Bleiziffer Sabine, Wolf Alexander, Renker Matthias, Neuser Jonas, Dörr Oliver, Allali Abdelhakim, Rudolph Tanja K, Wambach Jan Martin, Widder Julian D, Singh Parminder, Berliner Dominik, Alvarez-Covarrubias Hector A, Richardt Gert, Xhepa Erion, Kim Won-Keun, Joner Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: New-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV) were designed to overcome technical constraints of their preceding generations. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) versus Evolut PRO (PRO) devices.
METHODS: Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328).
CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate-severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO.
METHODS: Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328).
CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate-severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO.