Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Jun;111(6):1968-1974.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.08.010. Epub 2020 Oct 9.

Outcomes of Current-Generation Transfemoral Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Outcomes of Current-Generation Transfemoral Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Andreas Habertheuer et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to gain momentum with current-generation balloon-expandable (BE) Edwards SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and self-expandable (SE) Medtronic Evolut valves (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). Safety and efficacy of each device has been studied independently but head-to-head comparisons remain limited.

Methods: The institutional database was used to identify patients undergoing TAVR with BE and SE systems through transfemoral access between 2015 and 2018. Patients with an alternative access were excluded. Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare baseline risk-adjusted 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 variables and midterm outcomes, including survival, stroke, and readmission rates.

Results: A total of 294 BE (52.2%) and 269 SE (47.8%) valves were implanted. BE cohort was predominantly male (59.9% vs 33.1%, P < .001), with a larger body surface area (1.9 m2 vs 1.8 m2, P < .001), fewer prior aortic valve replacements (3.7% vs 10.0%, P = .003), and a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score (4.9% vs 6.7%, P < .001). After risk adjustment, SE patients had a higher propensity of ischemic stroke at 30 days (6.0% vs 1.4%, P = .015) but were comparable in other Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 variables, including mortality (1.7% vs 3.4%, P = .474), pacemaker (12.7% vs 15.2%, P = .162), and moderate paravalvular leak (1.8% vs 3.2%, P = .165). Over the midterm, SE and BE were comparable in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.24; P = .269), all-cause readmission (aHR, 0.92; P = .576), and stroke rate (aHR, 1.97; P = .061).

Conclusions: Midterm outcomes of both valve types were comparable despite a higher risk of short-term stroke for the SE cohort. Select patients may benefit from one valve type over another based on clinical and anatomic risk factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources