3-Year Outcomes From the Evolut Low Risk TAVR Bicuspid Study.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis beyond 2 years are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study. METHODS: The Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study conducted in 25 U.S. CENTERS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve anatomy (all subtypes) underwent TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular Evolut R or PRO (Medtronic) bioprosthesis. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all deaths and endpoint-related adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints. RESULTS: An attempted implant was performed in 150 patients from December 2018 to October 2019. The mean age was 70.3 ± 5.5 years, 48% (72/150) of the patients were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.3% (Q1-Q3: 0.9%-1.7%). Sievers type 1 was the dominant bicuspid morphology (90.7%, 136/150). The Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke were 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3%-5.3%) at 1 year, 3.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-8.1%) at 2 years, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.6%-10.7%) at 3 years. The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.4% (95% CI: 12.4%-29.6%) at 3 years. There were no instances of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 2 and 3 years after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year results from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study demonstrate low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and favorable hemodynamic performance.

Sex differences in the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with newer generation devices: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonable therapeutic approach among patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis irrespective of surgical risk. Data regarding sex-specific differences in the outcomes with newer generation valves are limited. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies assessing sex differences in the outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with newer generation valves (SAPIEN 3 or Evolut). Random effects model was constructed for summary estimates. RESULTS: Four observational studies with 4522 patients (44.8% women) were included in the meta-analysis. Women were older and had a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease and mean EuroScore. Women had a higher incidence of short-term mortality (up to 30 days) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-2.25), but no difference in 1-year mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.17). There was no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.86-1.57), permanent pacemaker (PPM) (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.62-1.04), or disabling stroke (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.54-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, we found that women undergoing TAVR with newer-generation devices were older but had a lower prevalence of comorbidities. Women had a higher incidence of short-term mortality but no difference in the 1-year mortality, bleeding, PPM, or stroke compared with men. Future studies are required to confirm these findings.

Multicenter comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND: New-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV) were designed to overcome technical constraints of their preceding generations. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) versus Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. METHODS: Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate-severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO.

Impact of different in vitro models on functional performance of the self-expanding transcatheter heart valve.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are investigated according to International Organization for Standardization requirements using in vitro heart simulators to evaluate hydrodynamic performance. In contrast to surgical valves, a THV's performance heavily depends on the configuration and shape of the aortic anulus. In International Organization for Standardization regulations, there is no detailed definition for the construction of a compartment in which a THV has to be tested. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to compare different in vitro models for functional testing of THVs. METHODS: Porcine aortic conduits (23-mm diameter) were implanted in Dacron prostheses and calcified with double-distilled water and calcification buffer at 37°C over 83 million cycles in a Hi-Cycler (durability testing) mimicking nearly 3 patient-years. Hydrodynamic testing of Evolut PRO 26 mm was performed within 3 models (plexiglass, native conduit and calcified conduit; all 23-mm diameter) at a frequency of 64 bpm and different stroke volumes (55-105 ml). RESULTS: Calcified conduits showed significantly higher mean pressure gradients (MPG) and lower effective orifice areas (EOA) in comparison to native conduits (without THV; P < 0.001). EOA and MPG of Evolut PRO differed depending on the model tested. Calcified conduits resulted in the lowest EOA and highest MPG of the THV compared to plexiglass and the native conduit. Full expansion of the THV was least impaired in the native conduit, while lowest geometric orifice area, lowest minimal internal diameter and highest pin-wheeling index of Evolut PRO were seen in the calcified conduit. CONCLUSIONS: Full expansion and functional performance of the Evolut PRO THV depends on the configuration of the testing compartment in an in vitro setting.

Comparison of Paravalvular Leak in SAPIEN 3 and EVOLUT PRO Valves in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Registry.

Paravalvular leak (PVL), conduction disturbances, and vascular complications remain the most common complications after TAVR. To address these adverse outcomes, the third generation of transcatheter heart valves has been developed. The last generation prosthesis provides an outer pericardial wrap for enhanced sealing and PVL prevention. This study aimed to compare the incidence and severity of PVL and 1-year survival after TAVR using SAPIEN 3 with those using EVOLUT PRO. An observational retrospective analysis was conducted in 1,481 patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in 6 different European centers. The primary end point was to assess the frequency and severity of PVL at 30 days after TAVR. The secondary end point was to compare 1-year survival using EVOLUT PRO with that using SAPIEN 3. SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve was implanted in 78.3% of study participants (n = 1,160) whereas EVOLUT PRO was implanted in 21.7% (n = 321). PVL is more commonly observed in patients treated with EVOLUT PRO at prehospital discharge (55.1% vs 37.3%) and at 1-month (51% vs 41.4%) and 1-year (51.3% vs 39.3%) follow-up. This difference mainly concerns low-grade (mild/trace) PVL. The frequency of high-degree (moderate/severe) PVL was almost similar in both groups throughout the study period (5.3% vs 5.8% before hospital discharge, 4% vs 3.1% at 1 month, and 3.2% vs 4.9% at 1 year). No significant difference in survival over 1 year has been observed (hazard ratio 0.73 [0.33 to 1.63], p = 0.442) (Graphical abstract). In conclusion, the detection rate of PVL after TAVR with third-generation heart valves remains high, and there are no major differences between the devices regarding the frequency of significant (moderate/severe) PVL and survival.

Incidence, Predictors, and Prognostic Impact of New Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After TAVR With Self-Expanding Valves.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with contemporary self-expanding valves (SEV). BACKGROUND: Need for PPI is frequent post-TAVR, but conflicting data exist on new-generation SEV and on the prognostic impact of PPI. METHODS: This study included 3,211 patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries (January 2012 to December 2021) who underwent transfemoral TAVR with SEV. Implanted transcatheter heart valves (THV) were Acurate neo (n = 1,090), Acurate neo2 (n = 665), Evolut PRO (n = 1,312), and Evolut PRO+ (n = 144). Incidence and predictors of new PPI and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: New PPI was needed in 362 patients (11.3%) within 30 days after TAVR (8.8%, 7.7%, 15.2%, and 10.4%, respectively, after Acurate neo, Acurate neo2, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+). Independent predictors of new PPI were Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation, both in patients treated with Acurate neo/neo2 and in those treated with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Predischarge reduction in ejection fraction (EF) was more frequent in patients requiring PPI (P = 0.014). New PPI was associated with higher 1-year mortality (16.9% vs 10.8%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.13-2.43; P = 0.010), particularly in patients with baseline EF <40% (P for interaction = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: New PPI was frequently needed after TAVR with SEV (11.3%) and was associated with higher 1-year mortality, particularly in patients with EF <40%. Baseline right bundle branch block and depth of THV implantation independently predicted the need of PPI.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Comparing Medtronic's Evolut PRO and Evolut R: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a broadly acceptable alternative to AV surgery in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). New valve designs are becoming available to address the shortcomings of their predecessors and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare Medtronic's Evolut PRO, a new valve, with the previous Evolut R design. Procedural, functional and clinical endpoints according to the VARC-2 criteria were assessed. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies involving N = 12,363 patients were included. Evolut PRO patients differed regarding age (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.001) and STS-PROM estimated risk. There was no difference between the two devices in terms of TAVI-related early complications and clinical endpoints. A 35% reduction of the risk of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (PVL) favoring the Evolut PRO was observed (RR 0.66, 95%CI, [0.52, 0.86] p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Similarly, Evolut PRO-treated patients demonstrated a reduction of over 35% in the risk of serious bleeding as compared with the Evolut R (RR 0.63, 95%CI, [0.41, 0.96]; p = 0.03; I2 = 39%), without differences in major vascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows good short-term outcomes of both the Evolut PRO and Evolut R prostheses, with no differences in clinical and procedural endpoints. The Evolut PRO was associated with a lower rate of moderate-to-severe PVL and major bleeding.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the self-expanding Evolut R/pro valve versus the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The Evolut R/Pro and the Sapien 3 are the most commonly valve systems used today for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, there is a still uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety comparison of these two valves. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the Evolut R/Pro versus the Sapien 3. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (short and long-term). The secondary outcomes were stroke, bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complication, device success, moderate- severe aortic regurgitation (AR), and pressure gradients. RESULTS: Twenty-one publications totaling 35,248 patients were included in the analysis. Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of short-term all-cause mortality (OR = 1.31;95% CI 1.15-1.49, p < 0.001) and a trend of higher long-term mortality (OR = 1.07;95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.06). The Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of PPI and AR and lower risk for bleeding, major vascular complication, and pressure gradients. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the risk of stroke, AKI and device success. CONCLUSIONS: The Evolut R/Pro valve system compared to the Sapien 3 is associated with higher risk of short-term mortality, significant AR and PPI while providing the advantage of lower risk of bleeding, major vascular complication, and lower residual transvalvular gradients.

From the Evolut Pro to the Evolut FX self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement systems: current status and future perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Since the initial experience with the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota), there have been continuous iterations of this valve system in order to improve procedural success and reduce periprocedural complications. The Evolut Pro, Pro+, and FX are the latest generations of this transcatheter heart valve (THV). AREAS COVERED: This review paper aims to analyze the main characteristics and clinical evidence about the Evolut Pro THV and summarize the main iterations of the newer generation Evolut FX valve system. EXPERT OPINION: The Evolut Pro system has been associated with good clinical outcomes and excellent valve hemodynamic performance including reduced rates of paravalvular leaks. Technical enhancements to improve valve positioning, orientation, and vascular access have been implemented in the newer generation Evolut FX system.

Hemodynamics of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in relation to native aortic annulus anatomy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare hemodynamic characteristics of different self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THV) in relation to native aortic annulus anatomy. BACKGROUND: A patient centered THV selection becomes increasingly important as indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are extended towards lower risk populations. METHODS: Hemodynamic parameters including mean gradient (MG), effective orifice area (EOA), Doppler velocity index (DVI), degree of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) were compared by valve type, label size and in relation to quintiles of native aortic annulus area. RESULTS: 2609 patients were treated at 3 centers in Germany with SAPIEN 3 (n = 1146), ACURATE Neo (n = 649), Evolut R (n = 546) or Evolut Pro (n = 268) THV. SE THVs provided superior hemodynamics in terms of larger EOA, higher DVI and lower MG compared to BE THV, especially in patients with small aortic annuli. Severe PPM was less frequent in SE treated patients. The rate of PVR ≥ moderate was comparable for SE and BE devices in smaller annular dimensions, but remarkably lower for BE TAVR in large aortic annular dimensions (> 547.64 mm2) (2% BE THV vs. > 10% for SE THV; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with small aortic annular dimensions may benefit hemodynamically from SE THV. With increasing annulus size, BE THV may have advantages since PVR ≥ moderate occurs less frequently.

Generational Differences in Outcomes of Self-Expanding Valves for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Medtronic Evolut Pro valve (EPV) is a new-generation self-expanding valve (SEV), particularly designed to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL) rates in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of EPV with older-generation SEVs, in particular, postprocedural PVL and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of the Israeli TAVR registry between September 2008 and June 2019. Two independent propensity score-matched comparisons were performed comparing EPV with the first-generation CoreValve (CV), and comparing EPV with the second-generation Evolut R valve (ERV). RESULTS: The registry included 2591 patients who were propensity-matched into 3 cohorts: EPV (n = 222), CV (n = 212), and ERV (n = 213). Moderate and above PVL rates were lower for EPV (angiographic PVL [aPVL], 0.6%; echocardiographic PVL [ePVL], 3.0%) as compared with CV (aPVL, 7.8% [P<.001] and ePVL, 11.6% [P<.01]), but not as compared with ERV (aPVL, 6.4% [P<.01] and ePVL, 4.4% [P=.57]). Lower rates of PPM were noted for EPV (16.3%) as compared with both CV (33.5%; P<.001) and ERV (24.4%; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.995; P=.046). Other safety and efficacy outcome rates were excellent, with significant improvements as compared with older-generation SEVs. CONCLUSIONS: The EPV demonstrates excellent procedural safety and efficacy outcomes. Moderate and above PVL rates were significantly reduced in comparison with CV; however, not significantly reduced as compared with ERV. The need for PPM implantation was lower as compared with both older-generation valves.

Gender Differences after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Insights from the Italian Clinical Service Project.

BACKGROUND: TAVR is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR); however, sex-related differences are still debated. This research aimed to examine gender differences in a real-world transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) cohort. METHODS: All-comer aortic stenosis (AS) patients undergoing TAVR with a Medtronic valve across 19 Italian sites were prospectively included in the Italian Clinical Service Project (NCT01007474) between 2007 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 1-year mortality. We also investigated 3-year mortality, and ischemic and hemorrhagic endpoints, and we performed a propensity score matching to assemble patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 3821 patients, 2149 (56.2%) women were enrolled. Compared with men, women were older (83 ± 6 vs. 81 ± 6 years, p < 0.001), more likely to present severe renal impairment (GFR ≤ 30 mL/min, 26.3% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.001) but had less previous cardiovascular events (all p < 0.001), with a higher mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (7.8% ± 7.1% vs. 7.2 ± 7.5, p < 0.001) and a greater mean aortic gradient (52.4 ± 15.3 vs. 47.3 ± 12.8 mmHg, p < 0.001). Transfemoral TAVR was performed more frequently in women (87.2% vs. 82.1%, p < 0.001), with a higher rate of major vascular complications and life-threatening bleeding (3.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.012 and 2.5% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.024). One-year mortality differed between female and male (11.5% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.002), and this difference persisted after adjustment for significant confounding variables (Adj.HR1yr 1.47, 95%IC 1.18-1.82, p < 0.001). Three-year mortality was also significantly lower in women compared with men (19.8% vs. 24.9%, p < 0.001) even after adjustment for age, STS score, eGFR, diabetes and severe COPD (Adj.HR3yr 1.42, 95%IC 1.21-1.68, p < 0.001). These results were confirmed in 689 pairs after propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: Despite higher rates of peri-procedural complications, women presented better survival than men. This better adaptive response to TAVR may be driven by sex-specific factors.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the new Evolut-Pro system: a prospective comparison with the Evolut-R device.

BACKGROUND: Evolut Pro (EVP) is a novel self-expandable aortic valve. This prosthesis consists of an external porcine pericardial wrap designed to reduce paravalvular leak (PVL), maintaining the benefits of its predecessor, the Evolut R (EVR). The aim was to compare the functional and clinical results in the short and medium term of the new EVP with the EVR system. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving either the EVR (n=50) or the EVP (n=33) from June 2015 to October 2018 were compared. Baseline characteristics, cardiovascular imaging, procedural outcomes, short and mid-term follow-up outcomes were prospectively collected and assessed. RESULTS: Residual mild PVL was common and comparable in the two groups (EVR 79% vs. EVP 70%; P=0.4). In the EVR group, the presence of PVL was directly related to prosthesis size, but this correlation was not observed in the EVP group. Conduction abnormalities were more prevalent with the EVP, but these did not translate into a higher need of permanent pacemaker implantation. Vascular and bleeding complications were infrequent in both groups. At mid-term clinical follow-up (median survival time: EVR 11±0.3 months, EVP 12±0.2 months), the 1-year rate of adverse events was similar (EVR: 24%, EVP: 33%; P=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Both protheses are effective for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis with excellent results at mid-term clinical follow up. The EVP remains associated with a significant rate of residual mild PVL that appears to be similar to that observed with EVR.

Combining the CoreValve Evolut PRO and 14-French eSheath in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Despite the small profile, it is occasionally difficult to pass the CoreValve InLine sheath through a calcified or tortuous femoral access. We present the case of an 84-year-old woman with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, wherein transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed using a self-expandable CoreValve Evolut PRO. Although delivering the CoreValve InLine sheath was difficult due to iliac artery calcification, a low-profile 14-French expandable eSheath proved useful for delivering the Evolut PRO system. This case demonstrated the feasibility of using the Evolut PRO valve combined with a 14-French eSheath, which was designed for the Edwards SAPIEN valve.

Performance of the CoreValve Evolut R and PRO in Severely Calcified Anatomy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CoreValve Evolut R and PRO (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) are among the newest-generation of self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices and show excellent results. Treating patients with severely calcified (SC) native aortic valve anatomy may be challenging because of the increased risk of periprocedural complications. This study investigated the performance of Evolut R and PRO in this special patient subset. METHODS: Patients who underwent TAVR with the CoreValve Evolut R or PRO (n=381) from September 2015 to March 2018 were divided by aortic valve calcification extent. Patients with SC aortic valve anatomy (n=98; men, >2,062 and women, >1,377 Agatston units) were compared with those with non-severely calcified (NCS) aortic valve anatomy after 1:2 propensity score matching. Outcomes were evaluated according to the updated valve academic research consortium criteria. RESULTS: Patients with SC anatomy were older (83 years vs 80 years, p<0.001) and had a smaller aortic valve area (0.63 cm2 vs 0.70 cm2, p=0.028). Pre-dilatation was more often performed (30.6% vs 15.8%, p=0.003) and a permanent pacemaker implantation was more often necessary (32.9% vs 8.8%, p<0.001) in the SC group. None/mild aortic regurgitation (AR) was evenly distributed (SC, 96.9% vs NCS, 99.5%, p=0.109); moderate AR was present in 3.1% of SC patients and in 0.5% of NSC patients. Severe AR was not observed. CONCLUSION: The CoreValve Evolut R and PRO showed good clinical safety profiles and excellent haemodynamic results in patients with SC anatomy and who more often required permanent pacemaker implantation.

Comparison of the self-expanding Evolut-PRO transcatheter aortic valve to its predecessor Evolut-R in the real world multicenter ATLAS registry.

BACKGROUND: The Evolut PRO self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve has been designed to feature an outer pericardial wrap that aims to reduce paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) rates. Medium-term clinical outcomes, compared to its predecessor Evolut R, in a real-world setting, have not been investigated. The aim of the present study was to compare the two valves with regards to peri-procedural complications, early outcomes and mid-term survival. METHODS: Consecutive patients, undergoing TAVI with either the Evolut PRO or Evolut R device, from the multicenter ATLAS registry were retrospectively studied. Outcomes studied included periprocedural complications, PVR at discharge, need for new pacemaker implantation and Kaplan-Meier estimated 1-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Analysis included 673 patients (498 treated with Evolut R and 175 treated with Evolut PRO). At least moderate PVR was numerically lower amongst patients treated with Evolut PRO (7.4% vs 3.8% for Evolut R and Evolut PRO respectively, p = .108). Rates of new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (21.1% vs. 11.9%, p = .023), and bail-out valve-in-valve (2.4% vs. 0%, p = .049) were significantly lower amongst the Evolut PRO group. No differences were demonstrated regarding bleeding, stroke or acute kidney injury. One-year Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was similar between groups (93% for Evolut R vs. 91.2% for Evolut PRO, plog-rank = 0.806). CONCLUSIONS: The Evolut PRO self-expanding valve demonstrates similar mid-term survival rates and numerically, yet not significant, lower incidence of PVR compared to its predecessor. Interestingly this new generation valve is associated with a significantly reduced rate for new PPM implantation. Future studies are required to confirm this finding.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Next-Generation Self-Expanding Devices: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Comparison of Evolut PRO Versus Acurate neo Transcatheter Heart Valves.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND: The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS: The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and pre-discharge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter registry, transfemoral TAVR with the NEO and PRO bioprostheses was associated with high device success, acceptable rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and good 30-day clinical outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, short-term outcomes were similar between the devices.

The Latest Evolution of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Matched Comparison of the Evolut PRO and Evolut R.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic and clinical performance of the Evolut PRO compared with its direct predecessor, the Evolut R. BACKGROUND: Recently, the newest commercially available generation of the self-expandable Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis, the CoreValve Evolut PRO, was introduced to the market. This prosthesis is based on the previous Evolut R model and specifically designed to mitigate paravalvular leakage. Because of the design changes, the Evolut PRO needs a larger sheath size (16-F vs. 14-F). METHODS: Patients receiving either the Evolut R (n = 148) or the Evolut PRO (n = 74) from September 2015 to January 2018 were compared in a 2:1 fashion after propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics, cardiovascular imaging, and pre- and periprocedural outcomes were prospectively collected and assessed. RESULTS: Both cohorts represent a high-risk, real-world collective with increased perioperative mortality risk (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score, Evolut R vs. Evolut PRO: 24.7 ± 13.7% vs. 25.1 ± 12.5%; p = 0.881). Procedural success was 100%, and the mean transvalvular pressure gradient was substantially reduced (Evolut R vs. Evolut PRO: 7.9 ± 3.9 mm Hg vs. 7.5 ± 3.5 mm Hg; p = 0.348). Mild paravalvular leakage was observed in 16.2% of Evolut R patients and in 14.9% of Evolut PRO patients (p = 0.794). In the Evolut R group, moderate aortic regurgitation was documented in 2 patients (Evolut R vs. Evolut PRO: 1.4% vs. 0%; p = 1.000). No differences regarding clinical parameters, such as major bleeding events (Evolut R vs. Evolut PRO: 1.4% vs.1.3%; p = 0.868) and vascular complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both prostheses show excellent hemodynamic performance with a low incidence of paravalvular leakage and comparable clinical outcomes.