TAVI with the CoreValve device demonstrated good durability at 7-year follow-up, with cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration of 3.6% and bioprosthetic valve failure of 2.5%.
Cohort (n=278)
No
Does TAVI with the third-generation CoreValve device provide durable long-term outcomes in high-risk patients?
The third-generation CoreValve bioprosthesis demonstrates good long-term durability with low rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure beyond five years.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the long-term outcomes of high-risk patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the third-generation CoreValve device, according to the 2017 EAPCI/ESC/EACTS definition of valve durability. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2013, 278 consecutive patients were enrolled in our prospective single-centre CoreValve registry (mean age 82±6 years, mean STS score 6.4±5.0%). The median follow-up of survivors was 6.8 years. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of HF rehospitalisation and all-cause mortality. Predictors of HF rehospitalisation were LVEF, MR and PVL at the last echocardiographic follow-up. The majority of patients were in NYHA Class I or II and showed mild/trivial paravalvular leak throughout follow-up. Mean pressure gradients remained stable over time. The overall crude cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure were 3.6% and 2.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall mortality was high in this elderly patient cohort, the CoreValve bioprosthesis showed good durability at seven-year follow-up.
Panico et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in High-risk patients undergoing TAVI (n=278). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the third-generation CoreValve device was evaluated on Structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure. TAVI with the CoreValve device demonstrated good durability at 7-year follow-up, with cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration of 3.6% and bioprosthetic valve failure of 2.5%.