Valvular & structural heart disease
Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO/PRO (PRO)/PRO+ devices
Authors' conclusion
This retrospective analysis reports a similar short-term performance of the ACURATE neo2 platform compared with the new-generation Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe AS, August 2017–December 2021; mean age 82±6.2 years, mean STS score 4.2%
- Participants
- 2,175 patients452 matched pairs
- Exposure
- ACURATE neo2 vs Evolut PRO/PRO+ for TAVR
- Neo2 (NEO2)n = 763
- PROn = 1,412reference
Methodological detailsmulticentre (20 centres), propensity-score matched, registry
- Multicentre (20 centres)
- Propensity-score matched
- Registry
Further findings
Technical success · in-hospital
- High technical success in both groups (NEO2 vs PRO)
- 93.1% vs 94.1%; p=0.361
- Similar in unmatched and matched analysis (452 pairs)
Predischarge intended valve performance
- High predischarge intended valve performance in both groups (NEO2 vs PRO)
- 96.0% vs 94.1%; p=0.056
- Similar in unmatched and matched analysis (452 pairs)
Device success · 30 days
- Device success comparable (NEO2 vs PRO)
- 84.3% vs 83.6%; p=0.688
- Regardless of aortic valve calcification severity (p>0.05 for interaction)
Safety
New permanent pacemaker implantation
P < 0.001
New permanent pacemaker implantation
- Suggestion of higher VARC-3 early safety with NEO2, mainly driven by fewer new pacemakers
Original publication
Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices. EuroIntervention. Published 23 January 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →