Kim, Won-Keun and Seiffert, Moritz and Rueck, Andreas and Leistner, David M. and Dreger, Henryk and Wienemann, Hendrik and Adam, Matti and Moellmann, Helge and Blumenstein, Johannes and Eckel, Clemens and Buono, Andrea and Maffeo, Diego and Messina, Antonio and Holzamer, Andreas and Sossalla, Samuel and Costa, Giuliano and Barbanti, Marco and Motta, Silvia and Tamburino, Corrado and von der Heide, Ina and Glasmacher, Julius and Sherif, Mohammad and Seppelt, Philipp and Fischtlscherer, Stephan and Walther, Thomas and Castriota, Fausto and Nerla, Roberto and Frerker, Christian and Schmidt, Tobias and Wolf, Alexander and Adamaszek, Martin and Giannini, Francesco and Vanhaverbeke, Maarten and van de Walle, Stefaan and Stammen, Francis and Toggweiler, Stefan and Brunner, Stephanie and Mangieri, Antonio and Gitto, Mauro and Kaleschke, Gerrit and Ninios, Vlasis and Ninios, Ilias and Huebner, Judith and Xhepa, Erion and Renker, Matthias and Charitos, Efstratios I. and Joner, Michael and Rheude, Tobias (2024) Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry. EUROINTERVENTION, 20 (6). ISSN 1774-024X, 1969-6213
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]). AIMS: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo 2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) >= moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR >= moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID <= 19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID <= 19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | AORTIC-VALVE; ACURATE NEO; CORONARY OBSTRUCTION; IMPLANTATION; REPLACEMENT; PROSTHESIS; OUTCOMES; degenerative valve; TAVI; valve-in-valve |
| Subjects: | 600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine |
| Divisions: | Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Herz-, Thorax- und herznahe Gefäßchirurgie |
| Depositing User: | Dr. Gernot Deinzer |
| Date Deposited: | 06 Aug 2025 06:54 |
| Last Modified: | 06 Aug 2025 06:54 |
| URI: | https://pred.uni-regensburg.de/id/eprint/65682 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
