Key result
Acurate Neo 2 linked to ~95% VARC-3 device success and better early safety vs Acurate Neo.
Why the study?
Acurate Neo has been linked to significant paravalvular leakage, addressed by Acurate Neo 2 with an active sealing skirt, while midframe under-expansion may also worsen outcomes.
Does the Acurate Neo 2 transcatheter heart valve system improve device success and early safety compared to the Acurate Neo system in patients undergoing TAVI?
Cohort (n=257)
Does the Acurate Neo 2 transcatheter heart valve system improve device success and early safety compared to the Acurate Neo system in patients undergoing TAVI?
Absolute Event Rate: 94.7% vs 86.3%
p-value: p=0.020
The Acurate Neo 2 valve improves device success and early safety compared to the earlier generation Acurate Neo, though midframe under-expansion remains a risk factor for worse 1-year clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neo 2 may improve early TAVI success and safety; leaves open whether benefits persist long-term or offset under-expansion risks.
Crusius et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis requiring TAVI (n=257). Acurate Neo 2 vs. Acurate Neo was evaluated on VARC-3 defined device success (p=0.020). TAVI with the Acurate Neo 2 yielded significantly higher VARC-3 defined device success (94.7% vs 86.3%, p=0.020) and early safety (87.2% vs 74.2%, p=0.008) compared to the Acurate Neo.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: