Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2013
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN versus the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system devices: a multicenter collaborative study: the PRAGMATIC Plus Initiative (Pooled-RotterdAm-Milano-Toulouse In Collaboration).
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Chieffo Alaide, Buchanan Gill Louise, Van Mieghem Nicolas M, Tchetche Didier, Dumonteil Nicolas, Latib Azeem, van der Boon Robert M A, Vahdat Olivier, Marcheix Bertrand, Farah Bruno, Serruys Patrick W, Fajadet Jean, Carrié Didier, de Jaegere Peter P T, Colombo Antonio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) versus the Edwards SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (ESV) for severe aortic stenosis.
BACKGROUND: No large matched comparison study has been conducted so far evaluating both commercially available devices.
METHODS: The data from databases of 4 experienced European centers were pooled and analyzed. Due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics, propensity score matching was performed. Study objectives were Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days and 1 year.
RESULTS: In total, 793 patients were included: 453 (57.1%) treated with the MCV and 340 (42.9%) with the ESV. After propensity matching, 204 patients were identified in each group. At 30 days, there were no differences in all-cause mortality (MCV, 8.8% vs. ESV, 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 2.984; p = 0.352), cardiovascular mortality (MCV, 6.9% vs. ESV, 6.4%; HR: 1.083; 95% CI: 0.496 to 2.364; p = 0.842), myocardial infarction (MCV, 0.5% vs. ESV, 1.5%; HR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.034 to 3.200; p = 0.339), stroke (MCV, 2.9% vs. ESV, 1.0%; HR: 3.061; 95% CI: 0.610 to 15.346; p = 0.174), or device success (MCV, 95.6% vs. ESV, 96.6%; HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.281 to 2.108; p = 0.611). Additionally, there were no differences in major vascular complications (MCV, 9.3% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 0.735; 95% CI: 0.391 to 1.382; p = 0.340) or life-threatening bleeding (MCV, 13.7% vs. ESV, 8.8%; HR: 1.644; 95% CI: 0.878 to 3.077; p = 0.120). MCV was associated with more permanent pacemakers (22.5% vs. 5.9%; HR: 4.634; 95% CI: 2.373 to 9.050; p < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in all-cause (MCV, 16.2% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 1.374; 95% CI: 0.785 to 2.407; p = 0.266) or cardiovascular (MCV, 8.3% vs. ESV, 7.4%; HR: 1.145; 95% CI: 0.556 to 12.361; p = 0.713) mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: No differences between the 2 commercially available transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices were observed at the adjusted analysis in Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes except for the need for permanent pacemakers with the MCV.
BACKGROUND: No large matched comparison study has been conducted so far evaluating both commercially available devices.
METHODS: The data from databases of 4 experienced European centers were pooled and analyzed. Due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics, propensity score matching was performed. Study objectives were Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days and 1 year.
RESULTS: In total, 793 patients were included: 453 (57.1%) treated with the MCV and 340 (42.9%) with the ESV. After propensity matching, 204 patients were identified in each group. At 30 days, there were no differences in all-cause mortality (MCV, 8.8% vs. ESV, 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 2.984; p = 0.352), cardiovascular mortality (MCV, 6.9% vs. ESV, 6.4%; HR: 1.083; 95% CI: 0.496 to 2.364; p = 0.842), myocardial infarction (MCV, 0.5% vs. ESV, 1.5%; HR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.034 to 3.200; p = 0.339), stroke (MCV, 2.9% vs. ESV, 1.0%; HR: 3.061; 95% CI: 0.610 to 15.346; p = 0.174), or device success (MCV, 95.6% vs. ESV, 96.6%; HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.281 to 2.108; p = 0.611). Additionally, there were no differences in major vascular complications (MCV, 9.3% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 0.735; 95% CI: 0.391 to 1.382; p = 0.340) or life-threatening bleeding (MCV, 13.7% vs. ESV, 8.8%; HR: 1.644; 95% CI: 0.878 to 3.077; p = 0.120). MCV was associated with more permanent pacemakers (22.5% vs. 5.9%; HR: 4.634; 95% CI: 2.373 to 9.050; p < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in all-cause (MCV, 16.2% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 1.374; 95% CI: 0.785 to 2.407; p = 0.266) or cardiovascular (MCV, 8.3% vs. ESV, 7.4%; HR: 1.145; 95% CI: 0.556 to 12.361; p = 0.713) mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: No differences between the 2 commercially available transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices were observed at the adjusted analysis in Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes except for the need for permanent pacemakers with the MCV.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisCardiac CatheterizationComparative Effectiveness ResearchFemaleHeart Function TestsHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePostoperative ComplicationsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingPropensity ScoreProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexSurvival AnalysisSurvival RateVascular Diseases