Paul Sorajja1, Susheel Kodali2, Michael J Reardon3, Wilson Y Szeto4, Stanley J Chetcuti5, James Hermiller6, Sharla Chenoweth7, David H Adams8, Jeffrey J Popma9. 1. Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Electronic address: paul.sorajja@allina.com. 2. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas. 4. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. St. Vincent's Heart Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana. 7. Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 8. Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York. 9. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the outcomes of commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the repositionable Evolut R platform to those observed with the CoreValve device in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry. BACKGROUND: TAVR continues to evolve, with rapid adoption of iterative changes for commercial practice. Insight into the outcomes of this adoption is needed. METHODS: Patients in the TVT Registry who had TAVR using a 23-, 26-, or 29-mm self-expanding prosthesis were enrolled. Site-reported events for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and April 2016, 9,616 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis with data entered in the TVT Registry. Compared with patients treated with CoreValve TAVR, those who received Evolut R TAVR had a lower STS-PROM score (8.0 ± 5.4% vs. 8.7 ± 5.3%; p < 0.001), more iliofemoral access (91.6% vs. 89.2%; p < 0.001), and more frequently had conscious sedation (27.4% vs. 12.7%; p < 0.001). With Evolut R TAVR, there was less need for a second prosthesis (2.2% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), less device migration (0.2% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.01), a lower incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (post-procedure, 4.4% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (4.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients treated with Evolut R TAVR had greater device success (96.3% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.001). At 30 days, Evolut R patients had both lower mortality (3.7% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.001) and less need for a pacemaker (18.3% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial adoption of the Evolut R platform is associated with significant improvements in acute outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the outcomes of commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the repositionable Evolut R platform to those observed with the CoreValve device in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry. BACKGROUND: TAVR continues to evolve, with rapid adoption of iterative changes for commercial practice. Insight into the outcomes of this adoption is needed. METHODS:Patients in the TVT Registry who had TAVR using a 23-, 26-, or 29-mm self-expanding prosthesis were enrolled. Site-reported events for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and April 2016, 9,616 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis with data entered in the TVT Registry. Compared with patients treated with CoreValve TAVR, those who received Evolut R TAVR had a lower STS-PROM score (8.0 ± 5.4% vs. 8.7 ± 5.3%; p < 0.001), more iliofemoral access (91.6% vs. 89.2%; p < 0.001), and more frequently had conscious sedation (27.4% vs. 12.7%; p < 0.001). With Evolut R TAVR, there was less need for a second prosthesis (2.2% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), less device migration (0.2% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.01), a lower incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (post-procedure, 4.4% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (4.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients treated with Evolut R TAVR had greater device success (96.3% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.001). At 30 days, Evolut R patients had both lower mortality (3.7% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.001) and less need for a pacemaker (18.3% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial adoption of the Evolut R platform is associated with significant improvements in acute outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis.
Authors: Michael J Reardon; Ted E Feldman; Christopher U Meduri; Raj R Makkar; Daniel O'Hair; Axel Linke; Dean J Kereiakes; Ron Waksman; Vasilis Babliaros; Robert C Stoler; Gregory J Mishkel; David G Rizik; Vijay S Iyer; Thomas G Gleason; Didier Tchétché; Joshua D Rovin; Thibault Lhermusier; Didier Carrié; Robert W Hodson; Dominic J Allocco; Ian T Meredith Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Simon C Y Chow; Randolph H L Wong; Gary S H Cheung; Alex P W Lee; Henry K L Chui; Kent C Y So; Eugene B Wu Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Francesco Pollari; Ferdinand Vogt; Irena Großmann; Jill Marianowicz; Marie Claes; Steffen Pfeiffer; Johannes Schwab; Theodor Fischlein Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.327
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