Percutaneous aortic valve replacement with the third-generation CoreValve system improved procedural success to 91.2% compared to 70.0% and 70.8% in earlier generations (P=0.003).
Observational (n=136)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 91.2% vs 70.8%
p-value: p=0.003
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous aortic valve replacement is a new emerging technology for interventional treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in surgical high-risk patients. This study was intended to provide a summary of the development and current safety and efficacy status of the self-expanding CoreValve Revalving prosthesis. METHOD AND RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2008, we have enrolled 136 consecutive patients with percutaneous aortic valve replacement using the CoreValve prosthesis. In this prospective nonrandomized, single-center trial, we analyzed procedural outcome, complications and clinical status up to 1 year. First, second, and third generation of the CoreValve prosthesis were implanted in 10, 24, and 102 consecutive high-risk patients (logistic EuroScore: 23.1+/-15.0%) with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 41.5+/-16.7 mm Hg. The procedural success rate increased from generation 1/2 to 3 from 70.0%/70.8% to 91.2% (P=0.003). The 30-day combined rate of death/stroke/myocardial infarction was 40.0%/20.8%/14.7% (P=0.11) for generation 1, 2, and 3, with no procedural death in generation 3. Pressure gradients improved significantly with a final mean gradient of 8.1+/-3.8 mm Hg. Overall functional status assessed by New York Heart Association class improved from 3.3+/-0.5 (pre) to 1.7+/-0.7 (post) (P<0.001) and remained stable in the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, percutaneous aortic valve replacement with the CoreValve system for selected patients with severe aortic valve stenosis has a high acute success rate associated with a low periprocedural mortality/stroke rate as well as remarkable clinical and hemodynamic improvements, which persist over time. Additional studies are now required to confirm these findings, particularly head-to-head comparisons with surgical valve replacement in different risk populations.
Grube et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Severe aortic valve stenosis (n=136). CoreValve Revalving prosthesis (Generation 3) vs. CoreValve Revalving prosthesis (Generations 1 and 2) was evaluated on Procedural success rate (p=0.003). Percutaneous aortic valve replacement with the third-generation CoreValve system improved procedural success to 91.2% compared to 70.0% and 70.8% in earlier generations (P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: