Key result
Edwards SAPIEN S3 and Evolut R showed no statistical difference in device success rate (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.70-1.91) or 30-day mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.33-1.57) in patients undergoing TAVI.
Why the study?
Third-generation transcatheter heart valve systems were developed to improve TAVI safety, but summary estimates comparing the peri-procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of Edwards SAPIEN 3 versus Evolut R were needed.
Does the Edwards SAPIEN 3 compared to the Evolut R improve peri-procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,664)
Does the Edwards SAPIEN 3 compared to the Evolut R improve peri-procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI?
Odds Ratio: 1.15 (95% CI 0.7–1.91)
Both ES3 and Evolut R demonstrate similar 30-day mortality and procedural success, but ES3 is associated with higher AKI risk while Evolut R has a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports valve selection based on specific complication risks rather than mortality; confirms comparable short-term efficacy while.
Li et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (n=1,664). Edwards SAPIEN S3 vs. Medtronic's Evolut R was evaluated on Device success rate (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.70-1.91). Edwards SAPIEN S3 and Evolut R showed no statistical difference in device success rate (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.70-1.91) or 30-day mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.33-1.57) in patients undergoing TAVI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: