Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of Self-Expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF.

Authors :
Gerfer S
Mauri V
Kuhn E
Adam M
Eghbalzadeh K
Djordjevic I
Ivanov B
Gaisendrees C
Frerker C
Schmidt T
Mader N
Rudolph T
Baldus S
Liakopoulos O
Wahlers T
Source :
The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon [Thorac Cardiovasc Surg] 2021 Aug; Vol. 69 (5), pp. 420-427. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Mar 24.
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Background:  Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have emerged as increasingly used alternatives to conventional aortic valve replacement to treat patients at higher surgical risk. Therefore, in this single-center study, we retrospectively compared clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of two self-expanding biological prostheses, the sutureless and rapid deployment valve (RDV) Perceval-S (PER) and the transcatheter heart valve (THV) ACURATE neo /TF (NEO) in a 1:1 propensity-score-matching (PSM) patient cohort.<br />Methods:  A total of 332 consecutive patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent either singular RDAVR with PER (119) or TAVI with NEO (213) at our institutions between 2012 and 2017. To compare the unequal patient groups, a 1:1 PSM for preoperative data and comorbidities was conducted. Afterward, 59 patient pairs were compared with regard to relevant hemodynamic parameter, relevant paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent postoperative pacemaker (PPM) implantation rate, and clinical postoperative outcomes.<br />Results:  Postoperative clinical short-term outcomes presented with slightly higher rates for 30-day all-cause mortality (PER = 5.1% vs. NEO = 1.7%, p  = 0.619) and major adverse cardiocerebral event in PER due to cerebrovascular events (transient ischemic attack [TIA]-PER = 3.4% vs. TIA-NEO = 1.7%, p  = 0.496 and Stroke-PER = 1.7% vs. Stroke-NEO = 0.0%, p  = 1). Moreover, we show comparable PPM rates (PER = 10.2% vs. NEO = 8.5%, p  = 0.752). However, higher numbers of PVL (mild-PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 55.9%, p  = 0.001; moderate or higher-PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 6.8%, p  = 0.119) after TAVI with NEO were observed.<br />Conclusion:  Both self-expanding bioprostheses, the RDV-PER and THV-NEO provide a feasible option in elderly and patients with elevated perioperative risk. However, the discussed PER collective showed more postoperative short-term complications with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality and cerebrovascular events, whereas the NEO showed higher rates of PVL.<br />Competing Interests: None declared.<br /> (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1439-1902
Volume :
69
Issue :
5
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
33761569
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1722692