Propensity-score-adjusted comparison of Evolut vs. Portico devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

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.

Comparative one-month safety and effectiveness of five leading new-generation devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis is becoming an appealing alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients and to medical therapy for inoperable ones. Several new-generation TAVI devices have been recently introduced, but comparative analyses are lacking. We aimed to compare 1-month outcomes associated with such five leading new-generation TAVI devices exploiting data collected in the prospective observational RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull’impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) Study. We queried the dataset of the ongoing RISPEVA study to retrieve baseline, procedural and 1-month outcome details of patients undergoing TAVI with Acurate, Evolut, Portico, Lotus, and Sapien3. Analysis was based on unadjusted and propensity score-adjusted methods. We included 1976 patients, 234 (11.8%) treated with Acurate, 703 (35.6%) with Evolut, 151 (7.6%) with Lotus, 347 (17.6%) with Portico, and 541 (27.4%) with Sapien3. Unadjusted analysis for baseline features highlighted several significant differences, and other discrepancies were found for procedural features. Despite these differences, device and procedural success were similarly high (ranging from 98.0% to 99.4%, p > 0.05). However, procedural valve migration appeared more common with Acurate (p = 0.007), and major bleeding with Sapien3 (p = 0.002). Unadjusted analysis for 1-month outcomes also highlighted significant differences in the composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, major bleeding, or renal failure (favoring Portico, p < 0.001), major vascular complications (favoring Lotus, p < 0.001), renal failure (favoring Portico, p = 0.035), and permanent pacemaker implantation (favoring Acurate, p < 0.001). Propensity score-adjusted analyses showed lower rates of major adverse events with Evolut and Portico (p < 0.05), major vascular complications with Lotus and Portico (p < 0.05), renal failure with Sapien3 (p < 0.05) and permanent pacemaker implantation with Acurate (p < 0.05). In conclusion, new-generation TAVI devices have different profiles of early comparative safety and efficacy. These findings should be taken into account for individualized decision making and patient management.