Assessing the Novel Myval Balloon-Expandable Valve with the Evolut Valve: A Propensity-Matched Study
- PMID: 37445248
- PMCID: PMC10342455
- DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134213
Assessing the Novel Myval Balloon-Expandable Valve with the Evolut Valve: A Propensity-Matched Study
Abstract
Background: The Myval balloon-expandable (BE) valve has shown encouraging early clinical data in terms of safety and efficacy. Comparative data with other well-established contemporary valves are nonetheless still scarce. This study aims to compare the performance of the Myval BE valve with the Evolut self-expanding (SE) valve.
Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 223 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) were included and treated with the Myval BE valve (n = 120) or with the Evolut SE valve (n = 103). Then, 91 pairs were compared after matching. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Echocardiographic follow-up was performed at 30 days.
Results: Procedural complications were rare in both groups. At the 30-day follow-up, no significant difference in cardiac death (Myval: 1% vs. Evolut: 2%, p = 0.56), stroke (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and myocardial infarction (1% vs. 3%, p = 0.31) was observed. A permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly less needed in the Myval group (4% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). At 1 year, cardiac death (2% vs. 4%, p = 0.41) and the stroke rate (7% vs. 5%, p = 0.76) were similar. Moderate-severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) was also comparable in both groups (1% vs. 4%, p = 0.17).
Conclusion: Safety and efficacy outcomes were comparable between the two valves, except for a higher PPI rate for the Evolut SE valve. Up to 1-year follow-up, clinical outcomes showed acceptable rates of stroke and cardiac death with both valves. Valve hemodynamics were excellent with a low rate of moderate-severe PVL in both groups.
Keywords: aortic valve stenosis; myval valve; transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Pilgrim T., Lee J.K., O’Sullivan C.J., Stortecky S., Ariotti S., Franzone A., Lanz J., Heg D., Asami M., Praz F., et al. Early versus newer generation devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in routine clinical practice: A propensity score matched analysis. Open Heart. 2018;5:e000695. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2017-000695. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Stundl A., Lucht H., Shamekhi J., Weber M., Sedaghat A., Mellert F., Grube E., Nickenig G., Werner N., Sinning J.M. Early versus newer generation transcatheter heart valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Echocardiographic and hemodynamic evaluation of an all-comers study cohort using the dimensionless aortic regurgitation index (AR-index) PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0217544. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217544. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Yoon S.-H., Lefevre T., Ahn J.-M., Perlman G.Y., Dvir D., Latib A., Barbanti M., Deuschl F., De Backer O., Blanke P., et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-and new-generation devices in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016;68:1195–1205. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.06.041. - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
