Key result
Navitor THV is linked to ~53% higher odds of 30-day PPI versus Evolut PRO+.
Why the study?
Despite differing in design and hemodynamic performance, no direct comparative studies had evaluated difference rates in conduction disturbances between the self-expanding Evolut and Navitor transcatheter heart valves.
Does the Navitor transcatheter heart valve compared to the Evolut PRO+ valve affect the rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Population
880 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis
Comparison
Evolut PRO+ vs Navitor transcatheter heart valves
Design
International, multicenter, retrospective registry study
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
Navitor associated with higher pacemaker rates than Evolut; leaves open whether design differences drive conduction outcomes.
Cohort (n=880)
Yes
Does the Navitor transcatheter heart valve compared to the Evolut PRO+ valve affect the rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Odds Ratio: 1.53 (95% CI 1.08–2.17)
Absolute Event Rate: 23.2% vs 17.6%
p-value: p=0.018
In patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis, the Navitor valve was associated with a higher 30-day rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation but less moderate or greater paravalvular leak compared to the Evolut PRO+ valve.
Poletti et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic stenosis (n=880). Navitor THV vs. Evolut PRO+ THV was evaluated on New permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) within 30 days among pacemaker-naïve patients (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.17, p=0.018). Navitor THV was associated with a higher 30-day rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation compared to Evolut PRO+ (23.2% vs. 17.6%; OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.17; p=0.018).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: