1. Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry.
- Author
-
Kim WK, Seiffert M, Rück A, Leistner DM, Dreger H, Wienemann H, Adam M, Möllmann H, Blumenstein J, Eckel C, Buono A, Maffeo D, Messina A, Holzamer A, Sossalla S, Costa G, Barbanti M, Motta S, Tamburino C, von der Heide I, Glasmacher J, Sherif M, Seppelt P, Fichtlscherer S, Walther T, Castriota F, Nerla R, Frerker C, Schmidt T, Wolf A, Adamaszek MM, Giannini F, Vanhaverbeke M, Van de Walle S, Stammen F, Toggweiler S, Brunner S, Mangieri A, Gitto M, Kaleschke G, Ninios V, Ninios I, Hübner J, Xhepa E, Renker M, Charitos EI, Joner M, and Rheude T
- Subjects
- Humans, Catheters, Heart Valves, Registries, Bioprosthesis, Aortic Valve Insufficiency etiology, Aortic Valve Insufficiency surgery, Coronary Occlusion, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement adverse effects
- Abstract
Background: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV])., Aims: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV., Methods: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching., Results: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients., Conclusions: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF