We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
The balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve is superior to the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral aortic valve implantation.
Journal of Cardiology 2017 June
BACKGROUND: Residual paravalvular moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (AR) has been an independent risk factor for mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The design of the third generation Edwards Sapien 3 (ES3; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) valve was optimized with an outer skirt to address the issue of paravalvular AR.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 100 consecutive patients treated with the ES3 for severe aortic stenosis with 100 patients treated with the Medtronic CoreValve (CV; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02162069). We evaluated post-procedural AR, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, device success, and 30-day clinical outcome according to the criteria of the Second Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2). Frequency of post-procedural moderate or severe AR was significantly lower with ES3 compared to CV (0% vs. 20%, p<0.01), none or trace AR significantly higher with ES3 (69% vs. 38%, p<0.01) as well as device success (97% vs. 73%, p<0.01). There was a significantly lower need for permanent pacemaker implantation with ES3 compared with CV (14% vs. 31%, p<0.01). Cardiovascular mortality at 30 days was significantly lower with ES3 (0% vs. 6%, p=0.01), and the combined endpoint "early safety" was met significantly less with ES3 (10% vs. 21% with CV, p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVI with the ES3 compared with the CV was associated with a significantly lower rate of moderate or severe AR, significantly lower need for pacemaker implantation, and a significantly higher rate of device success according to VARC-2.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 100 consecutive patients treated with the ES3 for severe aortic stenosis with 100 patients treated with the Medtronic CoreValve (CV; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02162069). We evaluated post-procedural AR, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, device success, and 30-day clinical outcome according to the criteria of the Second Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2). Frequency of post-procedural moderate or severe AR was significantly lower with ES3 compared to CV (0% vs. 20%, p<0.01), none or trace AR significantly higher with ES3 (69% vs. 38%, p<0.01) as well as device success (97% vs. 73%, p<0.01). There was a significantly lower need for permanent pacemaker implantation with ES3 compared with CV (14% vs. 31%, p<0.01). Cardiovascular mortality at 30 days was significantly lower with ES3 (0% vs. 6%, p=0.01), and the combined endpoint "early safety" was met significantly less with ES3 (10% vs. 21% with CV, p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVI with the ES3 compared with the CV was associated with a significantly lower rate of moderate or severe AR, significantly lower need for pacemaker implantation, and a significantly higher rate of device success according to VARC-2.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app