OBJECTIVES: Few data is available comparing Edwards SAPIEN XT - SXT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) with Medtronic CoreValve - CoV (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: We selected consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with SXT or CoV at our Institution. Main outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-combined safety endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (SXT, n=50 versus CoV, n=50) were analyzed. Both SXT and CoV showed good device success rates (98% versus 90%, p=0.20). SXT versus CoV reduced the occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR (26% versus 90%, p<0.0001) though not affecting the rate of moderate/severe regurgitation (p=0.20). SXT versus CoV required less frequently a permanent pacemaker after TAVR (8% versus 38%, p<0.0001). In-hospital major vascular complications (8% versus 4%, p>0.99), life-threatening bleedings (2% versus 4%, p>0.99), stroke (4% versus 6%, p>0.99) and death (6% versus 2%, p>0.99) did not differ between SXT and CoV. However, safety endpoints favored SXT (17% versus 34.6%, p=0.01), due to a numerically higher incidence of ischemic stroke and Acute Kidney Injury Stage 3 after CoV. At multivariate analysis, TAVR with SXT (odds ratio=0.21, 95% confidence intervals [0.05-0.84], p=0.03) was predictive of fewer adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN XT was associated with lower VARC-combined safety endpoints as compared with Medtronic CoreValve. More extensive cohorts are needed to confirm these results.
OBJECTIVES: Few data is available comparing Edwards SAPIEN XT - SXT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) with Medtronic CoreValve - CoV (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: We selected consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with SXT or CoV at our Institution. Main outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-combined safety endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (SXT, n=50 versus CoV, n=50) were analyzed. Both SXT and CoV showed good device success rates (98% versus 90%, p=0.20). SXT versus CoV reduced the occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR (26% versus 90%, p<0.0001) though not affecting the rate of moderate/severe regurgitation (p=0.20). SXT versus CoV required less frequently a permanent pacemaker after TAVR (8% versus 38%, p<0.0001). In-hospital major vascular complications (8% versus 4%, p>0.99), life-threatening bleedings (2% versus 4%, p>0.99), stroke (4% versus 6%, p>0.99) and death (6% versus 2%, p>0.99) did not differ between SXT and CoV. However, safety endpoints favored SXT (17% versus 34.6%, p=0.01), due to a numerically higher incidence of ischemic stroke and Acute Kidney Injury Stage 3 after CoV. At multivariate analysis, TAVR with SXT (odds ratio=0.21, 95% confidence intervals [0.05-0.84], p=0.03) was predictive of fewer adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN XT was associated with lower VARC-combined safety endpoints as compared with Medtronic CoreValve. More extensive cohorts are needed to confirm these results.
Authors: Josep Rodés-Cabau; Eric Dumont; Robert H Boone; Eric Larose; Rodrigo Bagur; Ronen Gurvitch; Fernand Bédard; Daniel Doyle; Robert De Larochellière; Cleonie Jayasuria; Jacques Villeneuve; Alier Marrero; Mélanie Côté; Philippe Pibarot; John G Webb Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Peter Wenaweser; Thomas Pilgrim; Nadja Roth; Alexander Kadner; Stefan Stortecky; Bindu Kalesan; Fabienne Meuli; Lutz Büllesfeld; Ahmed A Khattab; Christoph Huber; Balthasar Eberle; Gabor Erdös; Bernhard Meier; Peter Jüni; Thierry Carrel; Stephan Windecker Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philipp Kahlert; Stephan C Knipp; Marc Schlamann; Matthias Thielmann; Fadi Al-Rashid; Marcel Weber; Uwe Johansson; Daniel Wendt; Heinz G Jakob; Michael Forsting; Stefan Sack; Raimund Erbel; Holger Eggebrecht Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Cosmo Godino; Francesco Maisano; Matteo Montorfano; Azeem Latib; Alaide Chieffo; Iassen Michev; Rasha Al-Lamee; Marta Bande; Marco Mussardo; Francesco Arioli; Alfonso Ielasi; Micaela Cioni; Maurizio Taramasso; Irina Arendar; Antonio Grimaldi; Pietro Spagnolo; Alberto Zangrillo; Giovanni La Canna; Ottavio Alfieri; Antonio Colombo Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Eugenio Stabile; Armando Pucciarelli; Linda Cota; Giovanni Sorropago; Tullio Tesorio; Luigi Salemme; Grigore Popusoi; Vittorio Ambrosini; Angelo Cioppa; Marco Agrusta; Donato Catapano; Cesare Moscariello; Bruno Trimarco; Giovanni Esposito; Paolo Rubino Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Damiano Caruso; Russell D Rosenberg; Carlo N De Cecco; Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; Akos Varga-Szemes; Daniel H Steinberg; Andrea Laghi; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.931