A Comparison between First-Generation and Second-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Devices: A Propensity-Matched Single-Center Experience

Neil Ruparelia, Azeem Latib, Hiroyoshi Kawamoto, Nicola Buzzatti, Francesco Giannini, Filippo Figini, Antonio Mangieri, Damiano Regazzoli, Stefano Stella, Alessandro Sticchi, Akihito Tanaka, Marco Ancona, Eustachio Agricola, Fabrizio Monaco, Pietro Spagnolo, Alaide Chieffo, Matteo Montorfano, Ottavio Alfieri, Antonio Colombo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for high-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of second-generation (2G) devices in comparison to first-generation (1G) devices with regard to procedural and short-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: Between November 2007 and May 2015, a total of 449 patients treated with 1G TAVI devices (Edwards Sapien XT, Medtronic CoreValve) were propensity matched (1:1) to 179 patients treated with 2G TAVI devices (Edwards Sapien 3, Medtronic Evolut R, Boston Scientific Lotus, Direct Flow Medical). The primary endpoint was 30-day safety according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) definition. RESULTS: Patients treated with 1G devices suffered more adverse events at 30-day follow-up (freedom of adverse events, 75.3% vs 88.8%; hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-4.0; P≤.01) and a significantly greater number of minor vascular complications (31.8% vs 10.4%; P<.001) and major vascular complications (3.2% vs 0.6%; P<.001) compared with patients treated with 2G devices. The presence of residual aortic regurgitation ≥2 was also greater in the 1G group (17.5% vs 5.8%; odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13-0.69; P<.001). There were no differences between groups with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality (5.2% vs 3.2%; odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.20-1.92; P≤.40). CONCLUSION: TAVI with contemporary 2G devices was associated with a significant safety benefit at 30 days and reduction of residual moderate or severe paravalvular leak. Longer-term follow-up in more patients is required to determine if these short-term benefits translate into improvements in long-term clinical outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)210-216
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Invasive Cardiology
Volume28
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • first generation
  • second generation
  • TAVI
  • TAVR
  • transcatheter aortic valve implantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparison between First-Generation and Second-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Devices: A Propensity-Matched Single-Center Experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this