Clinical consequences of consecutive self-expanding transcatheter heart valve iterations.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare early clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with three consecutive generations of self-expanding valves (SEVs).MethodsClinical endpoints of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI with CoreValve, Evolut R or Evolut PRO were included in a prospective database.ResultsTAVI was performed with CoreValve (n = 116), Evolut R (n = 160) or Evolut PRO (n = 92). Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed a tendency towards lower permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates compared to CoreValve (CoreValve 27% vs Evolut R 16% vs Evolut PRO 18%, p = 0.091). By multivariable regression analysis CoreValve had a significantly higher risk for PPI (odds ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–5.94, p = 0.008) compared to Evolut R, while Evolut R and PRO were similar. Severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) occurred only with CoreValve, but no significant difference was observed in moderate PVL (10% vs 8% vs 6%, p = 0.49). CoreValve had a tendency towards a higher risk for more-than-mild PVL as compared with the Evolut platform (R + PRO) (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.98–6.16, p = 0.055). No significant differences in all-cause mortality (7% vs 4% vs 1%, p = 0.10), stroke (6% vs 3% vs 2%, p = 0.21) or major vascular complications (10% vs 12% vs 4%, p = 0.14) were observed.ConclusionsTAVI with self-expanding valves was safe, and device iterations may result in a lower need for PPI. More-than-mild PVL seemed to occur less often with repositionable technology.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01568-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.