Repositionable Versus Balloon-Expandable Devices for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis.
Fiche du document
17 novembre 2016
- doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.004088
- issn: 2047-9980
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1161/JAHA.116.004088
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/27856487
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2047-9980
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_F5C5038B6EE10
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
Valva aortaeCiter ce document
T. Pilgrim et al., « Repositionable Versus Balloon-Expandable Devices for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1161/JAHA.116.004088
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
The safety and effectiveness of the fully repositionable LOTUS valve system as compared with the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN 3 prosthesis for the treatment of aortic stenosis has not been evaluated to date. All patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 or the LOTUS valve system were included into the Swiss Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry. An adjusted analysis was performed to compare the early clinical safety outcome according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition. Between February 2014 and September 2015, 140 and 815 patients were treated with the LOTUS and the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve, respectively. There was no difference in crude and adjusted analyses of the early safety outcome between patients treated with LOTUS (14.3%) and those treated with Edwards SAPIEN 3 (14.6%) (crude hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.56 [P=0.915]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.64-1.67 [P=0.909]). More than mild aortic regurgitation was