The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2022
Generational Differences in Outcomes of Self-Expanding Valves for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Loewenstein Itamar, Merdler Ilan, Hochstadt Aviram, Zahler David, Finkelstein Ariel, Banai Shmuel, Topilsky Yan, Halkin Amir, Konigstein Maayan, Bazan Shmuel, Barbash Issy, Segev Amit, Guetta Victor, Danenberg Haim, Planner David, Orvin Katia, Assa-Vaknin Hana, Assali Abid, Kornowski Ran, Steinvil Arie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Evolut Pro valve (EPV) is a new-generation self-expanding valve (SEV), particularly designed to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL) rates in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of EPV with older-generation SEVs, in particular, postprocedural PVL and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation rates.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of the Israeli TAVR registry between September 2008 and June 2019. Two independent propensity score-matched comparisons were performed comparing EPV with the first-generation CoreValve (CV), and comparing EPV with the second-generation Evolut R valve (ERV).
RESULTS: The registry included 2591 patients who were propensity-matched into 3 cohorts: EPV (n = 222), CV (n = 212), and ERV (n = 213). Moderate and above PVL rates were lower for EPV (angiographic PVL [aPVL], 0.6%; echocardiographic PVL [ePVL], 3.0%) as compared with CV (aPVL, 7.8% [P<.001] and ePVL, 11.6% [P<.01]), but not as compared with ERV (aPVL, 6.4% [P<.01] and ePVL, 4.4% [P=.57]). Lower rates of PPM were noted for EPV (16.3%) as compared with both CV (33.5%; P<.001) and ERV (24.4%; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.995; P=.046). Other safety and efficacy outcome rates were excellent, with significant improvements as compared with older-generation SEVs.
CONCLUSIONS: The EPV demonstrates excellent procedural safety and efficacy outcomes. Moderate and above PVL rates were significantly reduced in comparison with CV; however, not significantly reduced as compared with ERV. The need for PPM implantation was lower as compared with both older-generation valves.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of the Israeli TAVR registry between September 2008 and June 2019. Two independent propensity score-matched comparisons were performed comparing EPV with the first-generation CoreValve (CV), and comparing EPV with the second-generation Evolut R valve (ERV).
RESULTS: The registry included 2591 patients who were propensity-matched into 3 cohorts: EPV (n = 222), CV (n = 212), and ERV (n = 213). Moderate and above PVL rates were lower for EPV (angiographic PVL [aPVL], 0.6%; echocardiographic PVL [ePVL], 3.0%) as compared with CV (aPVL, 7.8% [P<.001] and ePVL, 11.6% [P<.01]), but not as compared with ERV (aPVL, 6.4% [P<.01] and ePVL, 4.4% [P=.57]). Lower rates of PPM were noted for EPV (16.3%) as compared with both CV (33.5%; P<.001) and ERV (24.4%; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.995; P=.046). Other safety and efficacy outcome rates were excellent, with significant improvements as compared with older-generation SEVs.
CONCLUSIONS: The EPV demonstrates excellent procedural safety and efficacy outcomes. Moderate and above PVL rates were significantly reduced in comparison with CV; however, not significantly reduced as compared with ERV. The need for PPM implantation was lower as compared with both older-generation valves.