Comparison of ProGlide vs. Prostar in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Comparison of ultrasound- versus fluoroscopy-guidEd femorAl access In tranS-catheter aortic valve replacement In the Era of contempoRary devices: The EASIER registry

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications (VCs) still represent one of the principal concerns of trans-femoral trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). New-generation devices can minimize such complications but the arterial access management is left to the operator's choice. This study aims to describe the rate of VCs in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices and to determine whether an ultrasound-guided (USG) vs. a fluoroscopy-guided (FG) femoral access management has an impact on their prevention.

METHODS

This is a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices were analyzed from January 2022 to October 2022 in five tertiary care centers. Femoral accesses were managed according to the operator's preferences. All the patients underwent a pre-discharge peripheral ultrasound control. VCs and bleedings were the main endpoints of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 458 consecutive patients were enrolled (274 in the USG group and 184 in the FG group). VCs occurred in 6.5 % of the patients (5.2 % minor and 1.3 % major). There was no difference between the USG and the FG groups in terms of any VCs (7.3 % vs. 5.4 %; p = 0.4), or any VARC-3 bleedings (6.9 % vs 6 %, p = 0.9). At logistic regression analysis, the two guidance strategies did not result as predictors of VCs (odds Ratio 0.8, 95 % Confidence Interval 0.46-1.4; P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing TAVR with new-generation devices, the occurrence of VCs is low and mostly represented by minor VCs. USG and FG modalities did not affect the rate of VCs.

A single center study of the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide used for closure in thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with previous groin intervention

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Pro-Glide, a suture-mediated vascular closure device, regarding technical success and complications in patients who had undergone aortic intervention and had previous groin intervention (PGI).

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-five patients who underwent percutaneous thoracic endovascular aortic repair via the femoral artery and were closed with the Pro-Glide device were analyzed retrospectively. PGI was defined as a history of open surgical access to the femoral artery or wide sheath (>18 F) placement due to endovascular or valvular intervention. The patients were divided into two groups 38 cases with PGI and 97 cases without PGI.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of closure of the femoral artery with Pro-Glide was not statistically significant between the two groups (93.8% vs 92.1%, p = .711). Sheath sizes were compared between the groups and PGI (+) group had significantly higher sheath sizes compared to PGI (-) group (24.3 ± 1.1 F vs 23.8 ± 1.0 F, p = .011). Three patients in the PGI (+) group and six patients in the PGI (-) group experienced technical failure of the percutaneous femoral approach. Femoral complications were seen after the procedures in four patients in the PGI (+) group and four in the PGI (-) group. The PGI (+) group had a higher complication rate when compared to the PGI (-) group; however, this was not statistically significant (p = .181).

CONCLUSION

The present study was conducted on a significantly larger sample compared to previous studies and the findings suggest that the Pro-Glide vascular closure device is a safe option for patients with a history of PGI and may not be considered as a contraindication.

Selection of Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Various vascular closure devices (VCDs) are commonly used for percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, superiority and safety profile among them remain unclear. We compared periprocedural complications among various VCDs in patients undergoing TAVR. PubMed and EMBASE were searched through January 2022 to identify clinical studies comparing any 2 VCDs of Prostar, Proglide and MANTA in patients who underwent TAVR. Studies using surgical cut-down or alternative access other than transfemoral approach were excluded. We analyzed the odds ratios (ORs) of vascular complications (VC), bleeding, acute kidney injury and all-cause mortality using a network meta-analysis. All outcomes were defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria. Two randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies were identified, yielding a total of 11,344 patients including Prostar (n = 4499), Proglide (n = 5705), or MANTA group (n = 1140). The rates of major VC and life-threatening and major bleeding were significantly lower in Proglide compared to Prostar (OR [95 % CI] = 0.54 [0.32-0.89], 0.68 [0.52-0.90], and 0.49 [0.26-0.95], respectively). There was no significant difference in major VC and bleeding between Proglide and MANTA groups. Proglide was associated with a lower rate of acute kidney injury (0.56 [0.34-0.92]) and red blood cell transfusion (0.39 [0.16-0.98]) compared to Prostar. There was no significant difference in additional interventions and 30-day overall mortality among three groups. In this network meta-analysis of VCD in patients undergoing TAVR, MANTA and Proglide had comparable outcomes while Proglide appears superior to Prostar in terms of major VC and bleeding.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with Allegra: procedural and mid-term outcomes according to experience phase in a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis. We aimed at appraising effectiveness of a new self-expandable TAVI device.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our institutional experience with Allegra (Biosensors, Morges, Switzerland) for TAVI, focusing on procedural outcomes and 1-month adverse events. We explored the impact of operator experience with this device, dividing patients according to their time of intervention.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, a total of 50 patients underwent TAVI with Allegra, with average age of 81 years, 80% women, and 50% at low or intermediate surgical risk. No major significant difference in baseline patient features were found when comparing Phase 1 and Phase 2, except for baseline left ventricular ejection fraction and New York Heart Association, which were worse in Phase 1. All procedures were performed transfemorally and percutaneously, with predilation in 94% and postdilation in 36%, yielding device success in 98%, and procedural success in 96%. No significant differences in procedural features were found when comparing Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 (all P>0.05). One-month follow-up was also favorable, with no significant difference in adverse outcomes according to phase, and a total of 1 (4%) death, 1 (4%) myocardial infarction, 1 (4%) minor vascular complication, and 4 (8%) permanent pacemaker implantations. Consistent findings were obtained at exploratory 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Allegra TAVI device is associated with favorable short-to-midterm outcomes in experienced hands. Operators already proficient with other devices can achieve satisfactory results even in the early phase of adoption of Allegra.

Large-bore arterial access closure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Aims

As the indications to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) expand to patients at increasingly lower risk, procedure-related vascular and bleeding complications events must be minimized. We aimed to evaluate the impact of different large-bore arterial access closure devices on clinical outcomes after TAVR.

Methods and results

We searched for papers that reported outcomes according to the type of vascular closure device/technique used after TAVR and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Fifteen studies involving 9259 patients who underwent access site closure using PROSTAR™ XL percutaneous vascular surgical system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA), Perclose ProGlide™ suture-mediated closure system (Abbott), or MANTA^TM vascular closure device (Teleflex, Morrisville, NC, USA) were included. NMA showed MANTA to have the highest likelihood of reducing a primary composite endpoint of intra-hospital death, major vascular complications, and major or life-threatening bleedings [surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) 94.8%], but this was mitigated when only randomized clinical trials and propensity-matched cohorts were included (SUCRA 56.1%). The ProGlide showed the highest likelihood to reduce major or life-threatening bleedings, especially with increasing procedural complexity, and the MANTA device to reduce major and minor vascular complications. The ProStar XL device performed poorly in all explored endpoints.

Conclusion

Available evidence summarized through a NMA shows that ProGlide and MANTA devices appear to be both valid vascular closure devices globally and to be the best options to minimize vascular complications and reduce bleeding in patients undergoing TAVR, respectively.

An upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Vascular complications still represent an important issue after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of upfront use of an adjunctive Angio-Seal (AS) plug-based system on top of suture-based devices (SBDs) for endovascular haemostasis after transfemoral (TF) TAVI.

METHODS

From January 2019 to April 2020, 332 consecutive patients with preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) assessment underwent fully percutaneous TF-TAVI. The primary outcomes were 30-day major vascular complications and major or life-threatening (LT) bleeding due to endovascular closure system failure. A total of 246 TF-TAVI patients (123 pairs), undergoing either isolated SBD or SBD+AS, were matched using the propensity-score method.

RESULTS

At 30 days, patients receiving SBD+AS had lower rates of major/LT bleeding (1.6% vs 8.9%, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04-0.78; p<0.01) and major vascular complications (1.6% vs 8.9%, OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.78; p<0.01). In addition, the use of SBD+AS was associated with a significant cost saving related to the vascular event (mean difference -315.3 € per patient, 95% CI: -566.4 € to -64.1 €; p=0.01), and a higher probability of next-day discharge (NDD) after TAVI (30.9% vs 16.3%, OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.25-4.25; p<0.01). No difference in all-cause 30-day mortality was observed (3.3% vs 1.6% for SBD and SBD+AS groups, respectively, OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.09-2.74; p=0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

An upfront combined strategy with an additional AS plug-based device on top of SBDs was shown to reduce major vascular complications and major/LT bleeding due to closure system failure after TF-TAVI. This approach was associated with a cost saving and with a higher probability of NDD compared to the use of isolated SBD. Visual summary. Effectiveness of the upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation using Angio-Seal on top of a suture-based device (SBD) versus the isolated use of SBD. LT: life-threatening; TF-TAVI: transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Commissural alignment with new-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valves during aortic replacement

Preserving coronary artery access is a crucial goal during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures, especially in case of self-expandable transcatheter heart valve (SE-THV) implantation. In this light, a proper commissural alignment is needed to avoid the risk of coronary obstruction and to permit easy vessels re-cannulation for diagnostic and interventional purposes. New-generation SE-THVs have been furnished of different markers, able to guide operators to perform a correct commissural alignment. In this case series, we describe key procedural aspects of commissural alignment for the different available SE-THVs, providing a step-by-step tutorial for each device. Lastly, we illustrate a commissural alignment in a contrast-zero TAVR.

Assessing the Best Prognostic Score for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (from the RISPEVA Registry)

The ACC/TVT score is a specific predictive model of in-hospital mortality for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to test its predictive accuracy in comparison with standard surgical risk models (Logistic Euroscore, Euroscore II, and STS-PROM) in the population of TAVI patients included in the multicenter RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) registry. The study cohort included 3293 patients who underwent TAVI between 2008 and 2019. The 4 risk scores were calculated for all patients. For all scores, the capability to predict 30-day mortality was assessed by means of several analyses testing calibration and discrimination. The ACC/TVT score showed moderate discrimination, with a C-statistics for 30-day mortality of 0.63, not significantly different from the standard surgical risk models. The ACC/TVT score demonstrated, in contrast, better calibration compared with the other scores, as proved by a greater correspondence between estimated probabilities and the actual observations. However, when the ACC/TVT score was tested in the subgroup of patients treated in a more contemporary period (from 2016 on), it revealed a slight tendency to lose discrimination and to overestimate mortality risk. In conclusion, in comparison with the standard surgical risk models, the ACC/TVT score demonstrated better prediction accuracy for estimation of 30-day mortality in terms of calibration. Nevertheless, its predictive reliability remained suboptimal and tended to worsen in patients treated more recently.

Thrombocytopenia Complicating Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Differences Between Two New-Generation Devices

Thrombocytopenia after TAVI is common and clinically detrimental. Retrospectively, we observed Portico recipients had a more profound platelet drop than Evolut recipients. We thus investigated periprocedural platelet damage and/orpro-inflammatory state in 64 TAVI recipients at baseline and after implantation. Platelet damage was assessed by annexin V staining and monocyte-phagocytic phenotype was assessed according to CD14/CD36 expression. Serum cytokines were measured in 20 patients. The formaldehyde-based storage solution altered platelets. When, before being loaded onto the delivery system, Portico underwent one additional flushing to those recommended, the receiving patients showed thrombocytopenia, platelet damage, and CD36-monocyte count were mitigated. A general increase in IL-6 was recorded in overall TAVI recipients, but a high serum level of IL-8, a potent thrombocytopenia inducer, was measured in Portico recipients only, including those with extra-rinsed valve. Our study suggests a platelet-injury effect by storage-solution and generates the hypothesis of a role for the biomaterial in stimulating innate-immunity. Larger prospective studies are needed.

Baseline, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to different body mass index categories

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become first-line treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis in patients with moderate, high or prohibitive surgical risk. However, access site complications may occur more frequently in extreme body mass index (BMI) categories. The aim of this study was to describe the features and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI in a comprehensive Italian prospective clinical registry, focusing on BMI classes.

METHODS

A national prospective database was queried for baseline, procedural, and outcome details of patients undergoing TAVI according to established BMI categories: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m²), and obese (BMI≥30 kg/m²). Short- and long-term outcomes, including major adverse events (MAE), i.e. the composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, major bleeding, or renal failure, were appraised with bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 3075 subjects were included, 64 (2.1%) were underweight, 1319 (42.9%) were normal weight, 1152 (37.4%) were overweight, and 540 (17.6%) were obese. Several baseline differences were evident, including gender, diabetes mellitus, renal function, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, surgical scores, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (all P<0.05). Several procedural differences were also evident, including percutaneous approach, predilation, prosthesis type and size (all P<0.05), with postprocedural aortic regurgitation >2+ significantly more common in underweight patients (P<0.05). Nonetheless, unadjusted analysis for one-month outcomes showed similar rates for fatal and non-fatal outcomes, including MAE (all P>0.05), with the notable exception of permanent pacemaker implantation, which was more common in higher BMI classes (P=0.010) Unadjusted analysis for long-term events showed an increased rate of death in underweight patients (P=0.024). Multivariable adjusted analysis confirmed the increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation in obese patients (P=0.015 when comparing obese vs. normal weight subjects), but disproved differences in long-term mortality and other outcomes (P>0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of BMI class, TAVI is associated with favorable outcomes in surgical high-risk risk patients, with the notable exclusion of permanent pacemaker implantation, which is significantly more common in obese subjects.

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires large‐bore access, which is associated with bleeding and vascular complications. ProGlide and Prostar XL are vascular closure devices widely used in clinical practice, but their comparative efficacy and safety in TAVR is a subject of debate, owing to conflicting results among published studies. We aimed to compare outcomes with Proglide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices after TAVR.

Methods and Results

This large‐scale analysis was conducted using RISPEVA, a multicenter national prospective database of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR treated with ProGlide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices. Both multivariate and propensity score adjustments were performed. A total of 2583 patients were selected. Among them, 1361 received ProGlide and 1222 Prostar XL. The predefined primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications assessed at 30 days and 1‐year follow‐up. At 30 days, there was a significantly greater reduction of the primary end point with ProGlide versus Prostar XL (13.8% versus 20.5%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65–0.99]; P=0.043), driven by a reduction of bleeding complications (9.1% versus 11.7%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58–0.98]; P=0.046). Propensity score analysis confirmed the significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding risk with ProGlide. No significant differences in the primary end point were found between the 2 vascular closure devices at 1 year of follow‐up (multivariate adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72–1.10]; P=0.902). Comparable results were obtained by propensity score analysis. During the procedure, compared with Prostar XL, ProGlide yielded significant higher device success (99.2% versus 97.5%, respectively; P=0.001).

Conclusions

ProGlide has superior efficacy as compared with Prostar XL in TAVR procedures and is associated with a greater reduction of composite adverse events at short‐term, driven by lower bleeding complications.

Registration Information

URL: clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02713932.

Comparison between PeRcutanEous and surgical femoral aCcess for endovascuLar aOrtic repair in patientS with typE III aortic Dissection (PRECLOSE Trial)

OBJECTIVES

Aortic dissections are cardiovascular events with high mortality and morbidity rates. Management might be either with medical or interventional approach. Recently, thoracic endovascular intervention (TEVAR) becomes the first treatment of choice because of its better results and lower rates of complications in patients with type III aortic dissections. The intervention might be performed via femoral artery either with percutaneous or with surgical approach. Because of large sheath insertion to femoral artery, Pre-close technique is described in literature. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the outcomes and safety of 'Pre-close technique' to surgical approach in patients with type III aortic dissections who underwent TEVAR with femoral access ≥22 F.

METHODS

A total of 96 patients whom had type III aortic dissection and was performed TEVAR were retrospectively included in the study. Fifty-six patients had TEVAR with percutaneous approach and these patients are named as P-TEVAR group, and 40 patients had TEVAR with surgical approach and these patients are named as S-TEVAR group. Pre- and post-procedural data with complications and procedural data during TEVAR were evaluated for both groups and compared in between.

RESULTS

The main finding was that there was no significant difference between S-TEVAR and P-TEVAR groups in terms of complications and technical success. Operating room time was significantly decreased in P-TEVAR group (P < 0.001). Overall success rate for femoral approach in patients with Pre-close technique was 94.6% and was 100% for surgical approach. P-TEVAR group had post-operative complications in three patients and S-TEVAR group had in four patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Total percutaneous approach with Pre-close technique using Pro-Glide device is a safe and feasible method of femoral access in patients with type III aortic dissections.

Clinical efficacy and safety of the PRO-glide device as a sUture-mediated ClosurE in Thoracic EndoVascular Aortic Repair in patients with previous groin intervention (from the PRODUCE-TEVAR Trial)

BACKGROUND

While the percutaneous approach is increasingly preferred, suture-mediated closure devices have been put into clinical practice to close the femoral artery during procedures requiring a large-sized introducer. However, scar in the groin is considered a contraindication or an exclusion criterion for percutaneous procedures. The aim of our study was to investigate the outcomes and safety of Pro-Glide device as suture-mediated closure device in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair with percutaneous femoral access ≥22 F who had previous groin intervention.

METHODS

A total of 73 patients who underwent endovascular repair with percutaneous femoral access were retrospectively included in the study. Previous groin intervention was defined as history of open surgical access or large sheath insertion (>18 F) to femoral artery because of endovascular or valvular intervention. Patients were divided into two groups as who had previous groin intervention PGI (+) and had not PGI (-).

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients [60 male (82.2%)] were included in the study. Seventeen patients had PGI, and 56 did not. When groups were compared in terms of sheath sizes, a significantly higher sheath sizes were used in PGI (+) patients (24.5 ± 1.1 F vs. 23.8 ± 0.9 F, p = 0.005). The overall success rate in the femoral approach with pre-close technique was statistically insignificant between two groups (94.1% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.55). One patient in PGI (+) group and two patients in PGI (-) had technical failure for percutaneous femoral approach. One patient (5.9%) in PGI (+) group and one patient (1.8%) in PGI (-) group had femoral complications after the procedures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of complications (5.9% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Pro-Glide device may be a safe and less invasive method for femoral access in patients with PGI and might not be considered as a contraindication for patients with history of PGI.

The best way to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: From standard to new approaches

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and beneficial treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at high and intermediate surgical risk. The safety of the procedure continues to improve thanks to more refined procedural approaches and devices but, also and above all, to the accrual of the procedural knowledge and expertise by the operators. The diversification of the approaches and the possibility to tailor the treatment on the individual needs and anatomical features of the patients allows a rapid learning curve in the management of even complications. Indeed, there are several approaches with which TAVI can be carried out: transfemoral arterial, subclavian, transcarotid, transaortic, transaxillary, transapical, and through right anterior thoracotomy. Although transfemoral venous TAVI is less common, it has already have been carried out using caval-aortic punctures. This field is rapidly evolving, and it will be of paramount importance for interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons to keep up to date with further developments. This review intends to give an in-depth and update overview of both conventional and innovative TAVI approaches, with the scope to highlight the relevant advantages, major disadvantages, safety aspects and techniques.

Comparison of Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients ≥85 Years Versus Those <85 Years

The differential outcomes across the age spectrum of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) recipients are still debated. Aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of oldest-old patients undergoing TAVI in the large "Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea (RISPEVA)" registry. A total of 3,507 patients were stratified according to age: 1,381 were ≥85 years, 2,126 were <85 years. Primary endpoints were death at 30-days and complete follow-up (FU) (medium 368 days). Cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, bleedings, vascular complications at 30-days and complete FU were considered. In the unadjusted analysis, 30-days mortality in the oldest-old group was higher than in younger patients (4.2% vs 2.4%; p = 0.007); this difference kept true also at complete FU (19.6% vs 15.9%; p = 0.014). After propensity score (PS) matching, the oldest-old population showed a higher mortality solely at 30-days (4.7% vs 2.4%; p = 0.016), while the survival at complete FU was similar to that of younger patients (20.1% vs 18.0%; p = 0.286). The incidence of non-fatal outcomes resulted comparable between the 2 groups, also after propensity score matching. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis procedural major or disabling bleedings, cerebrovascular events, cardiogenic shock resulted predictors of 30-days death in the oldest-old cohort. In conclusion, patients ≥85 years can safely undergo TAVI being not more exposed to procedural complications than those <85 years; nevertheless they showed worse 30-days mortality, probably driven by reduced tolerance to complications. Passed the critical periprocedural phase, patients ≥85 years had a similar survival to those <85 years with comparable risk profile.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Portico Versus Evolut Devices

New-generation devices such as Evolut and Portico have provided favorable results in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis, but their comparative effectiveness remains debated, despite its relevance when envisioning TAVI in low-risk patients. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of 2 leading TAVI devices (Evolut and Portico) used by the same team of experienced TAVI operators, focusing on long-term outcomes, including major adverse events (i.e., the composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, or major bleeding). Unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted analyses were carried out. A total of 233 patients were included, 119 (51.1%) receiving Evolut and 114 (49%) Portico. Baseline and procedural data showed significant between-device differences, including functional class, surgical risk, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal function, transesophageal guidance, device size, postdilation, and procedural time (all p <0.05). Yet, acute and in-hospital outcomes were not significantly different (all p >0.05). Follow-up status was ascertained in 228 (98%) patients after 15.0 ± 7.6 months. Unadjusted analysis showed similar rates of major adverse events, as well as the individual risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, major bleeding, and pacemaker implantation (all p >0.05). Even at propensity score-adjusted analysis outcomes were not significantly different with Evolut and Portico (all p >0.05). In conclusion, Evolut and Portico devices yield similarly favorable results at long-term follow-up when used by experienced TAVI operators.