P3738Clinical outcomes after early vs new generation TAVR device deployment

• Published in: European heart journal 2019-10, Vol.40 (Supplement_1)
• Main Authors: Kalinczuk, L, Chmielak, Z, Zielinski, K, Mintz, G S, Dabrowski, M, Kumor, M, Jastrzebski, J, Skowronski, J, Motyl, D, Siodmiak, A, Pregowski, J, Michalowski, I, Demkow, M, Hryniewiecki, T, Witkowski, A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0195-668X; 1522-9645
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0592

Abstract Background Whether newer generation devices influence early and long-term outcomes post-TAVR in a real life setting is unknown. Aim To assess impact of an early vs a new generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) on clinical outcomes (30-day and -years) in a real life scenario. Methods Out of 445 consecutive pts treated between 8/2009 and 10/2017 within the single-center, prospective TAVR Registry, there were 432 [median 83.0 years of age, 63.4% female] with device success (97.1%) as per VARC-2. Early generation THV included: CoreValve; Edwards SAPIEN or SAPIEN XT. Newer generation devices included: Evolut-R/-Pro; Acurate neo; Engager, SAPIEN 3; or Lotus Edge Aortic Valve System. Results Median follow-up was 29.3 (15.8–53.1) months with 100% 1-year follow-up. Early generation devices were deployed in 60.6% (n=262) and new devices in 39.4% (n=170). Pts treated with newer devices had more peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and more frequent PCI history (17.1% vs 8.8%, p=0.015, and 35.3% vs 26.7%, p=0.068 respectively); other demographic and clinical data were alike. Baseline aortic valve area and LV ejection fraction were similar between early and newer devices. Pre-dilation was less frequent with newer devices (41.8% vs 70.6%, p