TAVR with the Evolut R valve resulted in significantly higher rates of none or trace paravalvular regurgitation by angiography compared to the CoreValve prosthesis (67% vs 29.3%; P<0.001).
Cohort (n=200)
Does the Evolut R valve improve procedural results and reduce paravalvular regurgitation compared to the CoreValve prosthesis in patients undergoing TAVR?
The new-generation Evolut R valve significantly reduces paravalvular regurgitation compared to the older CoreValve prosthesis, without increasing procedural complications.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 67% vs 29.3%
valor p: p=<0.001
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we compare procedural results of our first Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) implantations with the last CoreValve implantations. Main endpoints include paravalvular regurgitation, major vascular complications, stroke, and pacemaker implantation. BACKGROUND: The evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was possible due to various technical improvements, leading to better periprocedural and long-term outcome. The newly designed Evolut R valve has the potential to further improve TAVR's performance. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our first 100 consecutive patients who received the Evolut R valve with the last 100 consecutive patients who received the CoreValve prosthesis between July 2013 and February 2016. Only patients treated with a 26 mm or 29 mm bioprosthesis were included. RESULTS: No significant differences in patient characteristics were noticed. Both angiography and echocardiography after TAVR showed significantly higher rates of "none or trace" regurgitation in the Evolut R group (angiography: 67% Evolut R vs. 29.3% CoreValve; P < 0.001; echocardiography: 68% Evolut R vs. 46.5% CoreValve; P < 0.05). No significant differences were seen in 30-day mortality (7% CoreValve vs. 1% Evolut R), stroke rates (3% CoreValve vs. 2% Evolut R), pacemaker implantation rates (24% CoreValve vs. 23% Evolut R), and major vascular complications (6% CoreValve vs. 1% Evolut R). Implantations were significantly higher with the Evolut R prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR with the new Evolut R resulted in significantly lower paravalvular regurgitation. This may be due to redesigned cell geometry and higher precision during implantations, as well as the ability to resheath a malpositioned valve.
Gomes et al. (Thu,) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring TAVR (n=200). Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve vs. CoreValve prosthesis was evaluated on None or trace paravalvular regurgitation by angiography (p=<0.001). TAVR with the Evolut R valve resulted in significantly higher rates of none or trace paravalvular regurgitation by angiography compared to the CoreValve prosthesis (67% vs 29.3%; P<0.001).