OBJECTIVES: Pairwise comparisons of clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with new transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) prostheses are needed to help interventionists select the most appropriate device. The self-expandable Portico valve (Abbott Vascular) was compared with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences) at a high-volume center in a real-world setting. METHODS: All patients undergoing TAVR with a new-generation device from March 2015 to September 2017 at a single center were included. Baseline, peri-interventional, and prospective 30-day follow-up data were obtained. A nearest-neighbor propensity-score matching procedure (2:1) was used, based on age, STS score, EuroScore II, New York Heart Association (NYHA) status, and sex. Primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included procedural results, complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria, and echocardiographic findings. RESULTS: A total of 177 out of 273 patients were matched (104 Portico valves and 73 Sapien 3 valves). Procedural success rates were 99.0% vs 98.6%, respectively; P=NS). Contrast dye use (160 mL for Portico vs 120 mL for Sapien 3; P<.001) and fluoroscopy time (19.0 min for Portico vs 15.5 min for Sapien 3; P=.048) were significantly lower with the Sapien 3 device. Thirty-day mortality rate was 5.8% for the Portico group vs 4.1% for the Sapien 3 group (P=.74). Complication rates were similar between Portico and Sapien 3 groups: stroke (2.9% vs 4.1%, respectively; P=.31), major bleeding (3.8% vs 5.5%, respectively; P=.51), major vascular complications (5.8% vs 5.5%, respectively; P=.99), and pacemaker implantation (21.9% vs 17.5%, respectively; P=.55). A more-than-mild paravalvular leak was observed in 8.2% vs 4.5%, respectively (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were similar with Portico and Sapien 3 prostheses; no statistically significant differences were observed in mortality and major complication rates. An individually tailored prosthesis choice is suggested.
OBJECTIVES: Pairwise comparisons of clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with new transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) prostheses are needed to help interventionists select the most appropriate device. The self-expandable Portico valve (Abbott Vascular) was compared with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences) at a high-volume center in a real-world setting. METHODS: All patients undergoing TAVR with a new-generation device from March 2015 to September 2017 at a single center were included. Baseline, peri-interventional, and prospective 30-day follow-up data were obtained. A nearest-neighbor propensity-score matching procedure (2:1) was used, based on age, STS score, EuroScore II, New York Heart Association (NYHA) status, and sex. Primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included procedural results, complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria, and echocardiographic findings. RESULTS: A total of 177 out of 273 patients were matched (104 Portico valves and 73 Sapien 3 valves). Procedural success rates were 99.0% vs 98.6%, respectively; P=NS). Contrast dye use (160 mL for Portico vs 120 mL for Sapien 3; P<.001) and fluoroscopy time (19.0 min for Portico vs 15.5 min for Sapien 3; P=.048) were significantly lower with the Sapien 3 device. Thirty-day mortality rate was 5.8% for the Portico group vs 4.1% for the Sapien 3 group (P=.74). Complication rates were similar between Portico and Sapien 3 groups: stroke (2.9% vs 4.1%, respectively; P=.31), major bleeding (3.8% vs 5.5%, respectively; P=.51), major vascular complications (5.8% vs 5.5%, respectively; P=.99), and pacemaker implantation (21.9% vs 17.5%, respectively; P=.55). A more-than-mild paravalvular leak was observed in 8.2% vs 4.5%, respectively (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were similar with Portico and Sapien 3 prostheses; no statistically significant differences were observed in mortality and major complication rates. An individually tailored prosthesis choice is suggested.
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: Vinayak Kumar; Gurpreet S Sandhu; Charles M Harper; Henry H Ting; Charanjit S Rihal Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 5.501
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