Why the study?
The study was designed to compare the short- and medium-term functional and clinical results of the novel Evolut Pro system, featuring an external porcine pericardial wrap to reduce paravalvular leak, with its predecessor, the Evolut R.
Does the Evolut Pro system improve functional and clinical outcomes compared to the Evolut R system in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis?
Does the Evolut Pro system improve functional and clinical outcomes compared to the Evolut R system in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis?
The newer Evolut Pro system provides similar mid-term clinical outcomes and rates of residual mild paravalvular leak compared to the older Evolut R system in patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Similar mid-term outcomes should not change TAVR practice; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of Evolut systems.
BACKGROUND: Evolut Pro (EVP) is a novel self-expandable aortic valve. This prosthesis consists of an external porcine pericardial wrap designed to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL), maintaining the benefits of its predecessor, the Evolut R (EVR). The aim was to compare the functional and clinical results in the short and medium term of the new EVP with the EVR system. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving either the EVR (n=50) or the EVP (n=33) from June 2015 to October 2018 were compared. Baseline characteristics, cardiovascular imaging, procedural outcomes, short and mid-term follow-up outcomes were prospectively collected and assessed. RESULTS: EVP 70%; P=0.4). In the EVR group, the presence of PVL was directly related to prosthesis size, but this correlation was not observed in the EVP group. Conduction abnormalities were more prevalent with the EVP, but these did not translate into a higher need of permanent pacemaker implantation. Vascular and bleeding complications were infrequent in both groups. At mid-term clinical follow-up (median survival time: EVR 11±0.3 months, EVP 12±0.2 months), the 1-year rate of adverse events was similar (EVR: 24%, EVP: 33%; P=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Both protheses are effective for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis with excellent results at mid-term clinical follow up. The EVP remains associated with a significant rate of residual mild PVL that appears to be similar to that observed with EVR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alvarado et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: