Comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes with Evolut R versus Medtronic CoreValve: a Swiss TAVI registry analysis.
Noble S., Stortecky S., Heg D., Tueller D., Jeger R., Toggweiler S., Ferrari E., Nietlispach F., Taramasso M., Maisano F., Grünenfelder J., Jüni P., Huber C., Carrel T., Windecker S., Wenaweser P., Roffi M.
AIMS: Data on procedural and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the new-generation self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R prosthesis in comparison with its predecessor, the Medtronic CoreValve, are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the Evolut R device compared with the former-generation CoreValve. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a nationwide, prospective, multicentre cohort study, outcomes of consecutive transfemoral TAVI patients treated with the new-generation Medtronic Evolut R (September 2014 - February 2016) and the Medtronic CoreValve (February 2011 - February 2016) were investigated. Events were reported according to VARC-2 and adjudicated by a clinical events committee. During the study period, 317 and 678 consecutive patients underwent TAVI with the Evolut R and the CoreValve bioprosthesis, respectively. Baseline clinical characteristics between the groups were comparable, although Evolut R patients were lower risk according to the STS score (4.8±3.4% vs. 6.9±5.0%, p<0.001) and logistic EuroSCORE (17.3±13% vs. 20.1±13%, p=0.009). Implantation of the Evolut R was associated with a lower use of predilatation (48.1% vs. 72.4%, p<0.001), a shorter procedure time (67.9±36 min vs. 76.7±42 min, p=0.002), and less contrast dye use during the procedure (155.2±98 ml vs. 208.0±117 ml, p<0.001). Post-procedural mean gradient was comparable (7.4±4.7 mmHg vs. 7.5±5.0 mmHg), as were the 30-day rates of moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (8.5% vs. 10.5%), major vascular (9.8% vs. 10.3%) and life-threatening bleeding complications (5.4% vs. 5.3%), disabling stroke (1.9% vs. 1.6%), all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 3.4%) as well as permanent pacemaker implantation (22.1% vs. 23.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day clinical outcomes were favourable and comparable between the Evolut R and the CoreValve bioprosthesis.