Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
Assessing the Novel Myval Balloon-Expandable Valve with the Evolut Valve: A Propensity-Matched Study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Halim Jonathan, Rooijakkers Maxim, den Heijer Peter, El Haddad Milad, van den Branden Ben, Vos Jeroen, Schölzel Bas, Meuwissen Martijn, van Gameren Menno, El Messaoudi Saloua, van Royen Niels, IJsselmuiden Sander
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Myval balloon-expandable (BE) valve has shown encouraging early clinical data in terms of safety and efficacy. Comparative data with other well-established contemporary valves are nonetheless still scarce. This study aims to compare the performance of the Myval BE valve with the Evolut self-expanding (SE) valve.
METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, 223 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) were included and treated with the Myval BE valve (n = 120) or with the Evolut SE valve (n = 103). Then, 91 pairs were compared after matching. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Echocardiographic follow-up was performed at 30 days.
RESULTS: Procedural complications were rare in both groups. At the 30-day follow-up, no significant difference in cardiac death (Myval: 1% vs. Evolut: 2%, p = 0.56), stroke (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and myocardial infarction (1% vs. 3%, p = 0.31) was observed. A permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly less needed in the Myval group (4% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). At 1 year, cardiac death (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and the stroke rate (7% vs. 5%, p = 0.76) were similar. Moderate-severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) was also comparable in both groups (1% vs. 4%, p = 0.17).
CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy outcomes were comparable between the two valves, except for a higher PPI rate for the Evolut SE valve. Up to 1-year follow-up, clinical outcomes showed acceptable rates of stroke and cardiac death with both valves. Valve hemodynamics were excellent with a low rate of moderate-severe PVL in both groups.
METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, 223 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) were included and treated with the Myval BE valve (n = 120) or with the Evolut SE valve (n = 103). Then, 91 pairs were compared after matching. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Echocardiographic follow-up was performed at 30 days.
RESULTS: Procedural complications were rare in both groups. At the 30-day follow-up, no significant difference in cardiac death (Myval: 1% vs. Evolut: 2%, p = 0.56), stroke (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and myocardial infarction (1% vs. 3%, p = 0.31) was observed. A permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly less needed in the Myval group (4% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). At 1 year, cardiac death (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and the stroke rate (7% vs. 5%, p = 0.76) were similar. Moderate-severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) was also comparable in both groups (1% vs. 4%, p = 0.17).
CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy outcomes were comparable between the two valves, except for a higher PPI rate for the Evolut SE valve. Up to 1-year follow-up, clinical outcomes showed acceptable rates of stroke and cardiac death with both valves. Valve hemodynamics were excellent with a low rate of moderate-severe PVL in both groups.