OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter registry, transfemoral TAVR with the NEO and PRO bioprostheses was associated with high device success, acceptable rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and good 30-day clinical outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, short-term outcomes were similar between the devices.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter registry, transfemoral TAVR with the NEO and PRO bioprostheses was associated with high device success, acceptable rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and good 30-day clinical outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, short-term outcomes were similar between the devices.
Authors: Alberto Alperi; Guillem Muntané-Carol; Afonso B Freitas-Ferraz; Lucia Junquera; David Del Val; Laurent Faroux; François Philippon; Josep Rodés-Cabau Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-11
Authors: Mirosław Gozdek; Kamil Zieliński; Michał Pasierski; Matteo Matteucci; Dario Fina; Federica Jiritano; Paolo Meani; Giuseppe Maria Raffa; Pietro Giorgio Malvindi; Michele Pilato; Domenico Paparella; Artur Słomka; Jacek Kubica; Dariusz Jagielak; Roberto Lorusso; Piotr Suwalski; Mariusz Kowalewski Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Costanza Pellegrini; Tobias Rheude; Jonathan Michel; Hector A Alvarez-Covarrubias; Sarah Wünsch; N Patrick Mayr; Erion Xhepa; Adnan Kastrati; Heribert Schunkert; Michael Joner; Markus Kasel Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Philipp C Seppelt; Silvia Mas-Peiro; Roberta De Rosa; Zisis Dimitriasis; Andreas M Zeiher; Mariuca Vasa-Nicotera Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Pier Pasquale Leone; Fabio Fazzari; Francesco Cannata; Jorge Sanz-Sanchez; Antonio Mangieri; Lorenzo Monti; Ottavia Cozzi; Giulio Giuseppe Stefanini; Renato Bragato; Antonio Colombo; Bernhard Reimers; Damiano Regazzoli Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-06-04
Authors: H G Kroon; L van Gils; F Ziviello; M P H van Wiechen; J F W Ooms; Z Rahhab; N El Faquir; A-M Maugenest; J A Goudzwaard; P Cummins; M Lenzen; I Kardys; J Daemen; F Mattace-Raso; P P T de Jaegere; N M Van Mieghem Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Helge Möllmann; David M Holzhey; Michael Hilker; Stefan Toggweiler; Ulrich Schäfer; Hendrik Treede; Michael Joner; Lars Søndergaard; Thomas Christen; Dominic J Allocco; Won-Keun Kim Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 5.460