Clinical Outcomes of the Self-Expandable Evolut R Valve Versus the Balloon-Expandable SAPIEN 3 Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Abstract

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now indicated in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis and low, moderate, and high surgical risk. There are multiple types of valves available in TAVR. SAPIEN 3, and Evolut R are two of the most commonly used valves. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that compared SAPIEN 3 vs Evolut R in patients undergoing TAVR. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included major of life-threatening bleeding, risk of stroke, need of permanent pacemaker implantation, and risk of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). ResultsWe included a total of 9 studies. One study was a randomized clinical trial, five were prospective observational studies and three were retrospective. 30-day mortality rate was similar between SAPIEN 3 and Evolut R (odds ratio (OR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.93; p = 0.47). The risk of major or life-threatening bleeding (OR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.39; p = 0.48), and the risk of stroke (OR of 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.78; p = 0.62) were also similar between the two types of valves. Compared to SAPIEN 3, Evolut R was associated with statistically significant risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR of 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; p = 0.0007), and moderate to severe PVR (OR of 2.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.74; p = 0.02). ConclusionsAt 30 day follow up, both Evolut R and SAPIEN 3 shared similar risks of 30-day mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, and stroke; however greater odds of pacemaker placement implantation and moderate to severe PVR were associated with Evolut R.