Multi-Center Comparison of Two Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND

During the last years, several transcatheter aortic heart valves entered the clinical market and are commercially available. The prostheses differ regarding several technical and functional aspects. However, little is known regarding head-to-head comparative data of the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO valve prostheses.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare two self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV), the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO, with regard to in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, as well as early device failures.

METHODS

A total of 1591 consecutive patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis from two centers were included in the analyses and matched by 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to identify one patient treated with PORTICO (n = 344) for each patient treated with ACURATE neo (n = 344).

RESULTS

In-hospital complications were comparable between both valves, including any kind of stroke (ACURATE neo = 3.5% vs. PORTICO = 3.8%; p = 1.0), major vascular complications (ACURATE neo = 4.5% vs. PORTICO = 5.4%; p = 0.99) or life-threatening bleeding (ACURATE neo = 1% vs. PORTICO = 2%; p = 0.68). The rate of device failure defined by the VARC-2 criteria were comparable, including elevated gradients and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage (ACURATE neo = 7.3% vs. PORTICO = 7.6%; p = 1.0). However, the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly more frequent after the use of PORTICO THV (9.5% vs. 18.7%; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In this two-center case-matched comparison, short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes showed comparable results between PORTICO and ACURATE neo prostheses. However, PORTICO was associated with a significant higher incidence of PPI.