Why the study?
Comparative data among contemporary self-expanding transcatheter heart valve designs remain limited.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Navitor valve compared to the Evolut valve improve 1-year all-cause mortality in patients undergoing TAVR?
Population
2,673 consecutive TAVR patients (1,200 propensity score-matched)
Comparison
Evolut PRO/PRO+/FX vs Navitor
Design
Multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study
Follow-up
1-year
Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Navitor resulted in similar 1-year all-cause mortality compared to the Evolut platform (7.1% vs. 9.2%; HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.47-1.21; p=0.24).
Authors
Loading...
May guide contemporary self-expanding valve selection in TAVR; leaves open need for randomized head-to-head trials.
Cohort (n=2,673)
Yes
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Navitor valve compared to the Evolut valve improve 1-year all-cause mortality in patients undergoing TAVR?
Hazard Ratio: 0.75 (95% CI 0.47–1.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.1% vs 9.2%
p-value: p=0.24
Contemporary self-expanding TAVR valves (Navitor and Evolut) demonstrate comparable 1-year mortality and safety profiles, though the Evolut platform offers superior post-procedural hemodynamics.
Levi et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n=2,673). Navitor vs. Evolut PRO/PRO+/FX was evaluated on 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47-1.21, p=0.24). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Navitor resulted in similar 1-year all-cause mortality compared to the Evolut platform (7.1% vs. 9.2%; HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.47-1.21; p=0.24).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: