Why the study?
The superiority of the new-generation self-expanding Evolut R compared with the first-generation CoreValve regarding outcomes after TAVR was unclear.
Does the new-generation Evolut R valve improve 30-day safety outcomes compared to the first-generation CoreValve in patients undergoing TAVR?
Population
Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with CoreValve or Evolut R in a Taiwanese population
Comparison
Evolut R vs CoreValve
Design
Observational cohort study
Follow-up
30-day
Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the new-generation Evolut R significantly reduced the 30-day composite safety endpoint compared with CoreValve (4.3% vs. 15.4%, p=0.004).
Authors
Loading...
May improve 30-day TAVR safety in cohorts; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=234)
Does the new-generation Evolut R valve improve 30-day safety outcomes compared to the first-generation CoreValve in patients undergoing TAVR?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.3% vs 15.4%
p-value: p=0.004
The newer-generation Evolut R self-expanding valve significantly reduces 30-day composite safety endpoints, including stroke and the need for emergent surgery, compared to the older CoreValve in TAVR patients.
Kuo et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis requiring TAVR (n=234). Evolut R vs. CoreValve was evaluated on 30-day composite safety endpoint (p=0.004). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the new-generation Evolut R significantly reduced the 30-day composite safety endpoint compared with CoreValve (4.3% vs. 15.4%, p=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: