BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be an effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis who are deemed high risk or inoperable. Currently, TAVI procedures in China mostly make use of the domestic Venus A-Valve and the CoreValve; however, there is no data on their comparative performance. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing TAVI with the aforementioned devices were included. The outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC) definitions. RESULTS: A total of 54 TAVI procedures were performed, 27 with the CoreValve and the other 27 with the Venus A-Valve. An additional valve was required in 4 (14.8%) and 3 (11.1%) patients, and the VARC-2 device success rates were 81.5 and 85.2%, respectively. The incidences of common complications were similar, except for the significantly less frequent pacemaker insertion in the Venus A-Valve group (7.4 vs. 37.0%, P = 0.03). Within 30 days, 2 (3.7%) patients died, 1 in each group, and both had a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). No other serious complications, such as annular rupture, coronary obstruction and aortic dissection, occurred in the 32 BAV patients treated with the Venus A-Valve (14) or the CoreValve (18). After 2-years of follow-up, there was no significant difference between CoreValve group and Venus-A group (11.1 vs. 7.4%, P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: TAVI with the domestic Venus A-Valve is feasible, safe, and can produce favorable short-term outcomes comparable to those with the CoreValve in inoperable or high-risk patients with tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be an effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis who are deemed high risk or inoperable. Currently, TAVI procedures in China mostly make use of the domestic Venus A-Valve and the CoreValve; however, there is no data on their comparative performance. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing TAVI with the aforementioned devices were included. The outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC) definitions. RESULTS: A total of 54 TAVI procedures were performed, 27 with the CoreValve and the other 27 with the Venus A-Valve. An additional valve was required in 4 (14.8%) and 3 (11.1%) patients, and the VARC-2 device success rates were 81.5 and 85.2%, respectively. The incidences of common complications were similar, except for the significantly less frequent pacemaker insertion in the Venus A-Valve group (7.4 vs. 37.0%, P = 0.03). Within 30 days, 2 (3.7%) patients died, 1 in each group, and both had a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). No other serious complications, such as annular rupture, coronary obstruction and aortic dissection, occurred in the 32 BAVpatients treated with the Venus A-Valve (14) or the CoreValve (18). After 2-years of follow-up, there was no significant difference between CoreValve group and Venus-A group (11.1 vs. 7.4%, P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: TAVI with the domestic Venus A-Valve is feasible, safe, and can produce favorable short-term outcomes comparable to those with the CoreValve in inoperable or high-risk patients with tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.
Authors: Bo Fu; Qingliang Chen; Feng Zhao; Zhigang Guo; Nan Jiang; Xu Wang; Wei Wang; Jiange Han; Li Yang; Yanbo Zhu; Yanhe Ma Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-07
Authors: Jie Li; Yinghao Sun; Shengneng Zheng; Guang Li; Haojian Dong; Ming Fu; Yujing Mo; Yi Li; Huadong Liu; Zhaoyan Xu; Liting Zhang; Yong Cao; Ruixin Fan; D Scott Lim; Jianfang Luo Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-07-12