Why the study?
Does TAVI with the Venus A-Valve provide comparable safety and efficacy to the CoreValve in high-risk or inoperable patients with aortic stenosis?
Population
54 inoperable or high-risk patients with tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valve stenosis in China.
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the… vs Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
2 years
Key result
TAVI with the Venus A-Valve demonstrated similar 2-year clinical outcomes compared to the CoreValve (7.4% vs 11.1%, P=0.64), with significantly fewer pacemaker insertions (7.4% vs 37.0%, P=0.03).
Authors
Loading...
Supports Venus A-Valve as TAVI alternative with fewer pacemakers; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=54)
Does TAVI with the Venus A-Valve provide comparable safety and efficacy to the CoreValve in high-risk or inoperable patients with aortic stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 11.1%
p-value: p=0.64
The Venus A-Valve demonstrates comparable safety and efficacy to the CoreValve for TAVI in high-risk Chinese patients, with a notably lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantation.
Liao et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis (n=54). Venus A-Valve vs. CoreValve was evaluated on Events at 2-years of follow-up (p=0.64). TAVI with the Venus A-Valve demonstrated similar 2-year clinical outcomes compared to the CoreValve (7.4% vs 11.1%, P=0.64), with significantly fewer pacemaker insertions (7.4% vs 37.0%, P=0.03).