Key result
Evolut PRO TAVR shows comparable 30-day safety and efficacy to Evolut R.
Why the study?
Safety and efficacy of the CoreValve Evolut PRO valve have not previously been compared to its predecessor, the Evolut R valve in a real-world setting.
Does the CoreValve Evolut PRO system improve efficacy and safety compared to the Evolut R system in patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis?
Cohort (n=134)
No
Does the CoreValve Evolut PRO system improve efficacy and safety compared to the Evolut R system in patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis?
p-value: p=0.79
The newer generation Evolut PRO valve demonstrates comparable safety and efficacy to the Evolut R valve in real-world TAVR patients, supporting its adoption.
Comparable 30-day outcomes with Evolut PRO in this cohort; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change valve selection.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the Evolut PRO to the Evolut R valve in a real-world setting. BACKGROUND: The next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system, the CoreValve Evolut PRO was designed with an outer pericardial skirt to improve valve-sealing performance. Safety and efficacy of this valve have not previously been compared to its predecessor, the Evolut R valve. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 134 patients who underwent TAVR with the Evolut PRO or Evolut R valve over one year at a tertiary center. Endpoints, defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, included device success, paravalvular leak (PVL), and a composite safety endpoint including mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, coronary artery obstruction, and repeat procedure for valve-related dysfunction. RESULTS: =0.79), with nil incidence of severe PVL. There were no mortalities, and the VARC-2 safety endpoint at 30 days was comparable. CONCLUSION: Despite the additional pericardial skirt and larger sheath size of Evolut PRO, outcomes were comparable between the two Evolut systems, supporting adoption of the newest generation valve in the management of severe aortic stenosis as well as continued use of the Evolut R in patients with smaller vasculature warranting a lower profile device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rao et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic stenosis (n=134). CoreValve Evolut PRO vs. Evolut R valve was evaluated on Device success, paravalvular leak (PVL), and a composite safety endpoint including mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, coronary artery obstruction, and repeat procedure for valve-related dysfunction (p=0.79). TAVR with the Evolut PRO system demonstrated comparable 30-day safety and efficacy outcomes to the Evolut R system, with no severe paravalvular leak or mortalities.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: