Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the new Evolut-Pro system: a prospective comparison with the Evolut-R device.
Alvarado, Teresa; Rivero, Fernando; Diego, Guillermo; García-Guimaraes, Marcos; Salamanca, Jorge; Díez-Villanueva, Pablo; Cuesta, Javier; Antuña, Paula; Jiménez-Borreguero, Jesús; Alfonso, Fernando.
Afiliação
  • Alvarado T; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Rivero F; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Diego G; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • García-Guimaraes M; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Salamanca J; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Díez-Villanueva P; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Cuesta J; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Antuña P; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Jiménez-Borreguero J; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
  • Alfonso F; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
J Thorac Dis ; 13(7): 4023-4032, 2021 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34422332
ABSTRACT

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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article