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
Review
. 2025 Aug;106(2):820-829.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.31611. Epub 2025 May 27.

Effectiveness and Safety of Myval Versus Other Transcatheter Valves in Patients Undergoing TAVI: A Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Effectiveness and Safety of Myval Versus Other Transcatheter Valves in Patients Undergoing TAVI: A Meta-Analysis

Anastasios Apostolos et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Aug.

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has changed the treatment of aortic stenosis. The Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV), a novel balloon-expandable THV, has shown promising outcomes. Our aim is to compare the comparative safety and effectiveness of Myval THV against established THVs, such as Sapien and Evolut. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, comparing the Myval THV with other contemporary THVs. Primary endpoints were periprocedural, 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. Seven studies involving 3106 patients (1027 Myval; 2079 other THVs) were included. No significant differences were observed in the primary endpoints. Myval demonstrated higher procedural success (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07, I² = 29%) and lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) during the index hospitalization (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92, I² = 23%) and 30-days (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.89, I² = 43%), compared to other THV. At 30-day, Myval was associated with lower rates of moderate or severe transvalvular aortic regurgitation (RR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11-0.98, I² = 57%) and minor vascular complications (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.90, I² = 0%). When compared to self-expandable THV, Myval was associated with higher procedural and device success, higher early safety, lower risk for PPI, minor vascular complications and at least moderate transvalvular AR. When compared to Sapien, procedural success and risk for in-hospital PPI was borderline higher and lower in favor of Myval, respectively. The Myval THV demonstrates comparable safety and effectiveness to contemporary THVs, with advantages in procedural success, PPI, and vascular complications.

Keywords: TAVR; aortic valve; balloon‐expandable; self‐expandable; transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Andreas Baumbach: Consultation and speaker fees from: AstraZeneca, Sinomed, MicroPort, Medtronic, Faraday, Pi‐Cardia, Biosensors, JenaValve and Meril Life Sciences. Patrick Serruys: Consultancy fees from SMT, Novartis, Meril Life Sciences, and Philips. Konstantinos Toutouzas: Proctorship with Abbott, Meril Life Sciences and Medtronic; consultancy fees from Gore Medical; Board member of the Hellenic Society of Cardiology. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Forest plot showing (A) periprocedural mortality, (B) 30‐day, all‐cause mortality and (C) 1‐year, all‐cause mortality between Myval and other contemporary valves, with risk ratio and 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval, M−H, Mantel−Haenszel. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot showing (A) in‐hospital and (B) 30‐day permanent pacemaker implantation incidence between Myval and other contemporary valves, with risk ratio and 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval; M−H, Mantel−Haenszel. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Central Illustration 1
Central Illustration 1
This figure illustrates key clinical outcomes comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using Myval THV with other THVs. AR, aortic regurgitation; PPI, permanent pacemaker implantation; SEV, self‐expandable valve. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Similar articles

References

    1. Harris A. W., Pibarot P., and Otto C. M., “Aortic Stenosis,” Cardiology Clinics 38 (2020): 55–63, 10.1016/j.ccl.2019.09.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee G., Chikwe J., Milojevic M., et al., “ESC/EACTS vs. ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Severe Aortic Stenosis,” European Heart Journal 44 (2023): 796–812, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac803. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lim G. B., “Suitability of TAVI in Low‐Risk Patients,” Nature Reviews Cardiology 20 (2023): 284, 10.1038/s41569-023-00862-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bowdish M., Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in US Patients Younger Than 65 Years of Age, in: 104th Annual Meeting (Metro Toronto Convention Center, 2024).
    1. Bleiziffer S., Appleby C., Delgado V., et al., “Patterns of Aortic Valve Replacement in Europe and Adoption by Sex,” International Journal of Cardiology 406 (2024): 131996, 10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.131996. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms