Objectives: Both balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves are used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared procedural and clinical outcome variables of Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro in an all-comers collective.
Methods: In this single-center registry, patients were consecutively treated with the Sapien 3 from November 2014 to March 2017 (n = 129) and from April 2017 to December 2018 mainly (>95%) with the Evolut R/Pro (n = 124), due to a switch in the main TAVI supplier driven by hospital management. Data were retrospectively analyzed before and after the switch.
Results: One-year follow-up data were available for 122 (94%) of the Sapien and 112 (90%) of the Evolut patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable (EuroSCORE: Sapien 21.8 ± 0.9% vs Evolut 22.5 ± 0.8%; P=.20). Evolut implantation was associated with a higher radiation dose (Sapien 35770 ± 2345 mGy•cm² vs Evolut 85072 ± 8202 mGy•cm²; P<.001), more postimplantation balloon dilations (Sapien 17.1% vs Evolut 37.1%; P<.001), but similar procedure time (Sapien 75.2 ± 3.8 min vs Evolut 74.6 ± 3 min; P=.30). In-hospital mortality (Sapien 3.1% vs Evolut 4.0%; P=.70), all-cause mortality (Sapien 13.2% vs Evolut 15.3%; P=.70), all-stroke rate (Sapien 1.5% vs Evolut 6.5%; P=.05), and pacemaker implantation rate (Sapien 13.2% vs Evolut 18.5%; P=.30) were similar at 1 year. Permanent pacemaker rate was numerically higher in the first 6 months with Evolut (<6 months 26.7% vs >6 months 16%; P=.62); furthermore, radiation dose and balloon dilations also suggest a learning curve with Evolut.
Conclusions: Switching from Sapien 3 to Evolut R/Pro was not associated with a difference regarding periprocedural or 1-year clinical outcomes.
Keywords: Evolut valve; SAVR; Sapien 3 valve; TAVI; TAVR; learning curve; radiation; registry.