A Comparison Between First-Generation and Second-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Devices: A Propensity-Matched Single-Center Experience

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for high-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of second-generation (2G) devices in comparison to first-generation (1G) devices with regard to pro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of invasive cardiology 2016-05, Vol.28 (5), p.210-216
Hauptverfasser: Ruparelia, Neil, Latib, Azeem, Kawamoto, Hiroyoshi, Buzzatti, Nicola, Giannini, Francesco, Figini, Filippo, Mangieri, Antonio, Regazzoli, Damiano, Stella, Stefano, Sticchi, Alessandro, Tanaka, Akihito, Ancona, Marco, Agricola, Eustachio, Monaco, Fabrizio, Spagnolo, Pietro, Chieffo, Alaide, Montorfano, Matteo, Alfieri, Ottavio, Colombo, Antonio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for high-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of second-generation (2G) devices in comparison to first-generation (1G) devices with regard to procedural and short-term clinical outcomes. Between November 2007 and May 2015, a total of 449 patients treated with 1G TAVI devices (Edwards Sapien XT, Medtronic CoreValve) were propensity matched (1:1) to 179 patients treated with 2G TAVI devices (Edwards Sapien 3, Medtronic Evolut R, Boston Scientific Lotus, Direct Flow Medical). The primary endpoint was 30-day safety according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) definition. Patients treated with 1G devices suffered more adverse events at 30-day follow-up (freedom of adverse events, 75.3% vs 88.8%; hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-4.0; P=.01) and a significantly greater number of minor vascular complications (31.8% vs 10.4%; P
ISSN:1557-2501