Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut R versus Sapien 3 in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus: The OCEAN‐TAVI registry

Objectives To compare safety, efficacy, and hemodynamics of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self‐expanding and balloon‐expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in patients with a small aortic annulus. Background Few studies have directly compared TAVR outcomes us...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2021-05, Vol.97 (6), p.E875-E886
Hauptverfasser: Hase, Hiromu, Yoshijima, Nobuhiro, Yanagisawa, Ryo, Tanaka, Makoto, Tsuruta, Hikaru, Shimizu, Hideyuki, Fukuda, Keiichi, Naganuma, Toru, Mizutani, Kazuki, Yamawaki, Masahiro, Tada, Norio, Yamanaka, Futoshi, Shirai, Shinichi, Tabata, Minoru, Ueno, Hiroshi, Takagi, Kensuke, Watanabe, Yusuke, Yamamoto, Masanori, Hayashida, Kentaro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives To compare safety, efficacy, and hemodynamics of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self‐expanding and balloon‐expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in patients with a small aortic annulus. Background Few studies have directly compared TAVR outcomes using third‐generation THVs, focusing on patients with small aortic annuli. Methods In a multicenter TAVR registry, we analyzed data from 576 patients with a small annulus and who underwent transfemoral TAVR using third‐generation THVs. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline clinical characteristics. Results The device success rate in the overall cohort was 92.0% (Evolut R: 92.1% vs. Sapien 3:92.0%, p = 0.96). One year after TAVR, patients treated with Evolut R maintained a lower mean pressure gradient (mPG) and a higher indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) in the matched cohort {mPG: 9.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 6.0–11.9] vs. 12.0 [IQR: 9.9–16.3] mmHg, p 
ISSN:1522-1946
1522-726X
DOI:10.1002/ccd.29259