Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN versus the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system devices: a multicenter collaborative study: the PRAGMATIC Plus Initiative (Pooled-RotterdAm-Milano-Toulouse In Collaboration)

Alaide Chieffo, Gill Louise Buchanan, Nicolas M Van Mieghem, Didier Tchetche, Nicolas Dumonteil, Azeem Latib, Robert M A van der Boon, Olivier Vahdat, Bertrand Marcheix, Bruno Farah, Patrick W Serruys, Jean Fajadet, Didier Carrié, Peter P T de Jaegere, Antonio Colombo
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013 February 26, 61 (8): 830-6

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) versus the Edwards SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (ESV) for severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: No large matched comparison study has been conducted so far evaluating both commercially available devices.

METHODS: The data from databases of 4 experienced European centers were pooled and analyzed. Due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics, propensity score matching was performed. Study objectives were Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS: In total, 793 patients were included: 453 (57.1%) treated with the MCV and 340 (42.9%) with the ESV. After propensity matching, 204 patients were identified in each group. At 30 days, there were no differences in all-cause mortality (MCV, 8.8% vs. ESV, 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 2.984; p = 0.352), cardiovascular mortality (MCV, 6.9% vs. ESV, 6.4%; HR: 1.083; 95% CI: 0.496 to 2.364; p = 0.842), myocardial infarction (MCV, 0.5% vs. ESV, 1.5%; HR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.034 to 3.200; p = 0.339), stroke (MCV, 2.9% vs. ESV, 1.0%; HR: 3.061; 95% CI: 0.610 to 15.346; p = 0.174), or device success (MCV, 95.6% vs. ESV, 96.6%; HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.281 to 2.108; p = 0.611). Additionally, there were no differences in major vascular complications (MCV, 9.3% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 0.735; 95% CI: 0.391 to 1.382; p = 0.340) or life-threatening bleeding (MCV, 13.7% vs. ESV, 8.8%; HR: 1.644; 95% CI: 0.878 to 3.077; p = 0.120). MCV was associated with more permanent pacemakers (22.5% vs. 5.9%; HR: 4.634; 95% CI: 2.373 to 9.050; p < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in all-cause (MCV, 16.2% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 1.374; 95% CI: 0.785 to 2.407; p = 0.266) or cardiovascular (MCV, 8.3% vs. ESV, 7.4%; HR: 1.145; 95% CI: 0.556 to 12.361; p = 0.713) mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: No differences between the 2 commercially available transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices were observed at the adjusted analysis in Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes except for the need for permanent pacemakers with the MCV.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"