From the Department of Internal Medicine II, Cardiology, University of Ulm, Germany.
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Background—New generation devices for transfemoral aortic valve replacement were optimized on valve positioning and reduction of residual aortic regurgitation. We compared 30-day, 12-month, and 24-month outcomes of the Boston Scientific Lotus valve (Lotus) and the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 (ES3) valve. Primary end point was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 12 months.Methods and Results—Between 2014 and 2016, 537 patients were enrolled at our center, and 202 patients received Lotus and 335 ES3. There was no residual moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. Rate of mild aortic regurgitation was lower with the repositionable and retrievable Lotus valve compared with the ES3. Rate of pacemaker implantation was significantly higher with the Lotus valve compared with the ES3 valve (36.1% versus 14.9%, P<0.01). Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 early safety end point at 30 days was 7.4% with both devices with no difference in all-cause mortality (Lotus, 1.9%; ES3, 1.8%; P=0.87), rate of disabling stroke (Lotus, 1.5%; ES3, 2.1%; P=0.62), or major vascular complications (Lotus, 2.9%; ES3, 2.4%; P=0.69). The primary end point at 12 months was similar between groups. In a propensity score–matched comparison, there was no difference in the primary end point within 12 months (Lotus, 15.5%; ES3, 18.6%; P=0.69) and 24 months (Lotus, 21.9%; ES3, 26.4%; P=0.49).Conclusions—Transfemoral aortic valve replacement with the ES3 and the Lotus were associated with similar 30-day, 12-month, and 24-month clinical outcomes. Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher with the repositionable Lotus device.Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02162069.