PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 1, 2020Journal of Thoracic Disease11 citationsOpen Access

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Lotus and Sapien 3 prosthetic valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis

MGMirosław GozdekJRJakub RatajczakAAAdam Arndt

Key Result

TAVR with the Lotus valve compared to Sapien 3 reduced the risk of mild paravalvular leak (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.85) but increased permanent pacemaker implantation and cerebrovascular events.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=1,974)

Structured PICO

Does TAVR with the Lotus valve compared to the Sapien 3 valve improve procedural, clinical, and functional outcomes in patients with severe native valve stenosis?

P
Population
Patients with severe native valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (Sapien 3 N=1,974 mentioned)
I
Intervention
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with Lotus prosthetic valve
C
Comparator
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with Sapien 3 prosthetic valve
O
Outcome
Procedural, clinical and functional outcomes according to VARC-2 definitions (including composite endpoints of device success and early safety)composite

Compared to the Sapien 3 valve, the Lotus valve for TAVR reduces mild paravalvular leak but significantly increases the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation and cerebrovascular events.

Main Result

Effect estimate: RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.49-0.85)

p-value: p=0.002

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Frequent occurrence of paravalvular leak (PVL) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was the main concern with early-generation devices and focused technological improvements. Current systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare outcomes of TAVR for severe native valve stenosis with next-generation devices: Lotus and Sapien 3. METHODS: Electronic databases were screened for studies comparing outcomes of TAVR with Lotus and Sapien 3. In a random-effects meta-analysis, the pooled incidence rates of procedural, clinical and functional outcomes according to VARC-2 definitions were assessed. RESULTS: Sapien 3 N=1,974) met inclusion criteria. No differences were observed regarding composite endpoints-device success and early safety. Similarly, 30-day mortality, major vascular complications, acute kidney injury and serious bleeding events were similar with both devices. Lotus valve demonstrated 35% reduction of the risk for mild PVL: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.85, P=0.002; but there were no statistical differences with regard to moderate/severe PVL (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.18-1.77, P=0.320). Lotus valves produced significantly higher mean transaortic gradients: mean difference (MD) 0.88 mmHg, 95% CI, 0.24-1.53 mmHg, P=0.007; however, without translation into higher rate of prosthesis-patient mismatch (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.82-1.47, P=0.540). As compared to Sapien 3, Lotus device placement was associated with significantly higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.95-2.71, P<0.00001) and cerebrovascular events (RR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.03-2.99, P=0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Lotus valve, as compared with Sapien 3, was associated with lower risk for PVL but higher risk for permanent pacemaker implantation and cerebrovascular events.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gozdek et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in severe native valve stenosis (n=1,974). Lotus prosthetic valve vs. Sapien 3 prosthetic valve was evaluated on mild paravalvular leak (PVL) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.85, p=0.002). TAVR with the Lotus valve compared to Sapien 3 reduced the risk of mild paravalvular leak (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.85) but increased permanent pacemaker implantation and cerebrovascular events.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a148751f32709f3ed8ef312https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.12.107
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper