Valvular & structural heart disease
Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry
Authors' conclusion
ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical bioprostheses, 20 centresmatched cohort n=468
- Participants
- 835 patients
- Exposure
- ACURATE neo/neo2 vs Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ for transfemoral ViV TAVI
- ACURATEn = 251
- EVOLUTn = 584
- Outcome
- Technical success (VARC-3)
Methodological detailsmulticentre registry, propensity-score matched (1:1)
- Multicentre registry
- Propensity-score matched (1:1)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
P = 0.20
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
Device success (VARC-3) · matched cohort
P = 0.36
All-cause mortality · 30 days · matched cohort
P = 0.392
Mean gradients, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate, coronary obstruction
- Did not differ between the groups
Technical and device success, by true inner diameter (subgroup)
- True inner diameter (ID) >19 mm: technical and device success higher with ACURATE
- True ID ≤19 mm: device success (not technical success) higher with Evolut
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →