Multicenter Comparison of Novel Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves

This study sought to compare 2 next-generation transcatheter heart valves (THV), the self-expanding ACURATE neo (NEO) and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3), in terms of device failure and early safety at 30 days. Deployment of these THV showed promising initial clinical results. However, no compa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JACC. Cardiovascular interventions 2017-10, Vol.10 (20), p.2078-2087
Hauptverfasser: Husser, Oliver, Kim, Won-Keun, Pellegrini, Costanza, Holzamer, Andreas, Walther, Thomas, Mayr, Patrick N., Joner, Michael, Kasel, Albert M., Trenkwalder, Teresa, Michel, Jonathan, Rheude, Tobias, Kastrati, Adnan, Schunkert, Heribert, Burgdorf, Christof, Hilker, Michael, Möllmann, Helge, Hengstenberg, Christian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study sought to compare 2 next-generation transcatheter heart valves (THV), the self-expanding ACURATE neo (NEO) and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3), in terms of device failure and early safety at 30 days. Deployment of these THV showed promising initial clinical results. However, no comparative data are available. Of 1,121 treated patients at 3 centers, a 1-to-2 nearest neighbor matching was performed to identify 2 patients treated with S3 (n = 622) for each patient treated with NEO (n = 311). In-hospital complications were comparable between NEO and S3, including stroke (1.9% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.64), major vascular complications (10.3% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.38), or life-threatening bleeding (4.2% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.72). Device failure with NEO was comparable with S3 (10.9% vs. 9.6%; odds ratio: 1.09 [95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 1.73]; p = 0.71) with more paravalvular leakage (PVL II+, 4.8% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.01), but less elevated gradients (≥20 mm Hg, 3.2% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.02) and pacemaker implantations (9.9% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.02). Thirty-day mortality (2.3% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.74) and the early safety composite endpoint (15.8% vs. 15.6%; hazard ratio: 0.97 [95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.39]; p = 0.88) were similar with NEO and S3. Very high success rates were achieved for both valves, and the clinical and procedural results were comparable. Compared with S3, NEO was associated with less new pacemaker implantations and less elevated gradients, but with more paravalvular leakage. [Display omitted]
ISSN:1936-8798
1876-7605
DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2017.06.026