Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
Published in: Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 5/2020

01-10-2020 | Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation | Original Article

Outcomes of Direct Flow Medical vs Sapien 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Devices

Authors: Amr S. Gamal, Subhi Akleh, Azfar Zaman, Rajiv Das, Abdelrahman Ibrahim Abushouk, Richard Edwards

Published in: Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

This retrospective study was aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the Direct Flow Medical (DFM) valve with the more established Sapien 3 (S3) valve in transfemoral TAVI in high-risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients. Between February 2014 and August 2016, 99 and 68 patients had the S3 and DFM valves at our center, respectively. The device success rate was statistically similar among the S3 and DFM groups (p = 0.15). The overall post-procedural complication rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.4). The procedural time was significantly shorter in the S3 group (p < 0.001) and the post-procedure peak pressure gradient (p < 0.001) was significantly higher in the DFM group. However, the frequency of valvular or paravalvular leaks was similar between both valve groups. We found no significant differences in terms of safety between the DFM and S3 valves. This study confirms the safety and efficacy of the DFM valve in high-risk AS patients.
Literature
1.
Webb, J., & Cribier, A. (2010). Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve implantation: what do we know? European Heart Journal, 32(2), 140–147.CrossRef
2.
Piazza, N., et al. (2008). Procedural and 30-day outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the third generation (18 Fr) corevalve revalving system: results from the multicentre, expanded evaluation registry 1-year following CE mark approval. EuroIntervention: Journal OF EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 4(2), 242–249.CrossRef
3.
Grube, E., et al. (2007). Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients using the second-and current third-generation self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis: device success and 30-day clinical outcome. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 50(1), 69–76.CrossRef
4.
Cribier, A., et al. (2006). Treatment of calcific aortic stenosis with the percutaneous heart valve: mid-term follow-up from the initial feasibility studies: the French experience. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 47(6), 1214–1223.CrossRef
5.
Cribier, A., et al. (2004). Early experience with percutaneous transcatheter implantation of heart valve prosthesis for the treatment of end-stage inoperable patients with calcific aortic stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43(4), 698–703.CrossRef
6.
Leon, M. B., et al. (2010). Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(17), 1597–1607.CrossRef
7.
Smith, C. R., et al. (2011). Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(23), 2187–2198.CrossRef
8.
Elmaraezy, A., et al. (2017). Efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients at low to moderate surgical risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 17(1), 234.CrossRef
9.
Czerwińska-Jelonkiewicz, K., et al. (2014). Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): risk and long-term results. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 37(4), 490–498.CrossRef
10.
Mussardo, M., et al. (2011). Periprocedural and short-term outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Sapien XT as compared with the Edwards Sapien valve. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 4(7), 743–750.PubMed
11.
Buellesfeld, L., et al. (2011). 2-year follow-up of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a self-expanding valve prosthesis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 57(16), 1650–1657.CrossRef
12.
Thomas, M., et al. (2010). Thirty-day results of the SAPIEN aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome (SOURCE) Registry: a European registry of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN valve. Circulation, 122(1), 62–69.CrossRef
13.
Rodés-Cabau, J., et al. (2010). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk: acute and late outcomes of the multicenter Canadian experience. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 55(11), 1080–1090.CrossRef
14.
Lefèvre, T., et al. (2016). Prospective multicenter evaluation of the direct flow medical transcatheter aortic valve system: 12-month outcomes of the evaluation of the direct flow medical percutaneous aortic valve 18F system for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (DISCOVER) study. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 9(1), 68–75.PubMed
15.
De Marco, F., & Latib, A. (2014). Tools and techniques–clinical: The inner curve technique for implantation of the Direct Flow Medical® transcatheter aortic valve. EuroIntervention, 10(3), 400–402.CrossRef
16.
Zhang, Y., et al. (2015). Propensity-matched comparison between Direct Flow Medical, Medtronic Corevalve, and Edwards Sapien XT prostheses: Device success, thirty-day safety, and mortality. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 85(7), 1217–1225.CrossRef
17.
Giustino, G., et al. (2015). Early outcomes with direct flow medical versus first-generation transcatheter aortic valve devices: a single-center propensity-matched analysis. Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 28(6), 583–593.CrossRef
18.
Baumgartner, H., et al. (2017). 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal, 38(36), 2739–2791.CrossRef
19.
Lang, R. M., et al. (2006). Recommendations for chamber quantification. European Journal of Echocardiography, 7(2), 79–108.CrossRef
20.
Kappetein, A. P., et al. (2013). Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document∗. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 145(1), 6–23.CrossRef
21.
Ye, S. Q., et al. (2005). Pre–B-cell colony-enhancing factor as a potential novel biomarker in acute lung injury. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 171(4), 361–370.CrossRef
22.
Webb, J. G., et al. (2007). Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation, 116(7), 755–763.CrossRef
23.
Geisbüsch, S., et al., Incidence and management of CoreValve dislocation during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2010: p. CIRCINTERVENTIONS. 110.944983.
24.
Schulz, E., et al. (2017). Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the newest-generation Sapien 3 vs. Direct Flow Medical valve in a single center cohort. International Journal of Cardiology, 232, 186–191.CrossRef
25.
Bijuklic, K., et al. (2011). Midterm stability and hemodynamic performance of a transfemorally implantable nonmetallic, retrievable, and repositionable aortic valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 4(6), 595–601.PubMed
26.
Schofer, J., et al. (2014). Prospective multicenter evaluation of the direct flow medical transcatheter aortic valve. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 63(8), 763–768.CrossRef
27.
Jabbar, A., et al. (2016). 45 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comparison of The Direct Flow Medical and Sapian 3 Aortic Valves A–Single Centre Experience. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society.
28.
Sherif, M. A., et al. (2010). Anatomic and procedural predictors of paravalvular aortic regurgitation after implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 56(20), 1623–1629.CrossRef
29.
Abdel-Wahab, M., et al. (2014). Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. Jama, 311(15), 1503–1514.CrossRef
30.
Sinning, J.-M., et al. (2012). Aortic Regurgitation Index defines severity of periprosthetic regurgitation and predicts outcome in patients after Tavi: a two-centre experience. Am Heart Assoc.
Metadata
Title
Outcomes of Direct Flow Medical vs Sapien 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Devices
Authors
Amr S. Gamal
Subhi Akleh
Azfar Zaman
Rajiv Das
Abdelrahman Ibrahim Abushouk
Richard Edwards
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1937-5387
Electronic ISSN: 1937-5395
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-019-09948-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 5/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Lumped-Parameter Circuit Platform for Simulating Typical Cases of Pulmonary Hypertensions from Point of Hemodynamics

Original Article

MGUS Predicts Worse Prognosis in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Correction

Correction to: MGUS Predicts Worse Prognosis in Patients with CoronaryArtery Disease

Original Article

Acute In Vivo Functional Assessment of a Biodegradable Stentless Elastomeric Tricuspid Valve

Original Article

Protein Thermodynamic Destabilization in the Assessment of Pathogenicity of a Variant of Uncertain Significance in Cardiac Myosin Binding Protein C

Review

Atherosclerosis: Insights into Vascular Pathobiology and Outlook to Novel Treatments

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Cardiology Video

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Watch now

Watch official videos from the ACC congress summarizing key highlights from the last year in heart failure, cardiomyopathies, valvular disease, pulmonary vascular disease, and pediatric cardiology.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits