Transcathether aortic valve implantation with the new repositionable self-expandable Medtronic Evolut R vs. CoreValve system: evidence on the benefit of a meta-analytical approach

Mariusz Kowalewski*, Miroslaw Gozdek, Giuseppe Maria Raffa, Artur Slomka, Kamil Zielinski, Jacek Kubica, Lech Anisimowicz, Janusz Kowalewski, Uri Landes, Ran Kornowski, Roberto Lorusso, Piotr Suwalski

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

7 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

Aims To compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement TAVR with self-expandable first-generation Medtronic CoreValve with new-generation Evolut R devices in patients with aortic stenosis. Methods Multiple databases were screened for all available reports directly or indirectly comparing CoreValve vs Evolut R. Primary endpoint was device success. Procedural, functional and clinical outcomes were assessed as well. Results Ten retrospective series including 12 294 pts. were found. Overall device success rate was 95.5% and was statistically higher in the Evolut R treated patients as compared with CoreValve: 96.6 vs. 94.8%, respectively; RR (risk ratio) 95% CIs (confidence intervals): 1.02 (1.00-1.04); P U 0.01. There were no statistical differences with regard to postoperativemean aortic gradients 8.5R/-5.3 vs 7.9R/-4.6 with Evolut R and CoreValve. Evolut R valve demonstrated nearly 50% reduction of the risk for moderate-to-severe paravalvilar leak 0.55 (0.39-0.79); P U 0.001; 60% statistically significant lower risk of developing myocardial injury 0.40 (0.22-0.72); P U 0.002 and numerical reductions in the risk of acute kidney injury, vascular complications and bleeding. Together with significantly reduced risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (0.80 [0.67-0.96]; P U 0.02) the above benefits were associated with 40% reduction in the risk of 30-day all-cause mortality with Evolut R as compared to CoreValve: 0.60 (0.37-1.00); P U 0.05. Conclusions The use of new-generation Evolut R was associated with improved procedural, functional and clinical outcomes compared with the CoreValve device.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)226-236
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Medicine
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Keywords

  • SINGLE-CENTER EXPERIENCE
  • CLINICAL-OUTCOMES
  • RISK PATIENTS
  • REPLACEMENT
  • STENOSIS
  • REGURGITATION
  • PROSTHESIS
  • PACEMAKER
  • IMPACT
  • DEVICE

Cite this