Structural Heart

There’s No Clear King of TAVR Valves

Cardiologists have a wide selection of TAVR valves to choose from, and a new study pitting the top three second generation devices against each other suggests there’s not much difference in the long run.

  • Second generation TAVR valves improve on first gen valves by featuring better deliverability, reduced paravalvular leakage, and easier repositioning or retrieval.
  • So far, we haven’t known the long-term clinical outcomes of second-generation devices for TAVR beyond five years after implantation.

In a search for the king of TAVR valves, researchers compared seven year outcomes of Edward’s Sapien 3, Medtronic’s Evolut R/PRO, and Boston Scientific’s Acurate Neo, finding that all three had similar composite mortality, stroke, and HF re-hospitalization rates.

  • Of the study’s 383 TAVR patients, 131 received the Sapien 3, 134 received the Evolut R/PRO, and 118 got the Acurate Neo.
  • By the seven year follow up, the composite mortality, stroke and HF re-hospitalization rates were similar for all three (60.2% for Sapien 3, 51.6% for Evolut R/PRO, and 62.1% for Acurate Neo).

When it came to valve-related clinical efficacy, again all three valves were similar in their VARC-3 definitions (2.2% for Sapien 3, 1.2% for Evolut R/PRO, and 4.2% for Acurate Neo).

  • Even in the case of valve durability, researchers found that all three contenders had similarly low rates of valve degeneration.

Before you get disappointed with the three way tie, there are a couple of serious caveats to mention about this study.

  • First, the patient population is small relative to the number of people receiving these valves every year, so the sample isn’t the most representative.
  • Second, the study only included patients who did not have a CT before TAVR, which excludes a good chunk of patients as well.

The Takeaway

While this study is framed like a head-to-head comparison, we’ll certainly need more powerful clinical studies before we can crown a king of the TAVR hill. That said, there’s some comfort in knowing that, at least in the first seven years after implantation, the most common valves all perform similarly well.

Get twice-weekly insights on the biggest stories shaping cardiology.

You might also like

Cardiology Business June 19, 2025

Lilly Buys Verve, Bringing Gene Editing Mainstream June 19, 2025

Gene editing for heart disease just got a major boost as Eli Lilly acquired Verve Therapeutics and its one-dose cholesterol drugs for up to $1.3B, marking a new path for Verve’s therapies to go mainstream. Part of the acquisition likely stems from Verve’s recent impressive trial results for its PCSK9-blocking treatment, VERVE-102, which lowered LDL-C […]

Cardiac Imaging June 19, 2025

New AI-driven Tool Aids in Mitral Valve Assessment June 19, 2025

By: Jimmy Su, Ph.D. Principal Scientist, Cardiovascular Ultrasound, Philips A new tool, Automated 3D Color Flow Quantification (3D Auto CFQ), removes the reliance on assumptions when quantifying mitral regurgitation and replaces it with a reliable and robust, AI-driven method that delivers precise measurement of mitral valve regurgitant volume (RVol) regardless of orifice shape and size. Eliminating assumptions: Quantification […]

Cardiology Pharmaceuticals June 16, 2025

No Need to Discontinue Abelacimab Pre-Procedure June 16, 2025

A new analysis of AZALEA-TIMI 71 suggests Anthos Therapeutics’ abelacimab is capable of reducing major bleeding in patients with AFib undergoing invasive procedures. The sub-analysis examined a total of 920 procedures across 441 patients taking either abelacimab or rivaroxaban, with approximately 1-in-3 patients undergoing an invasive procedure over a median follow-up of 2.1 years. Researchers […]

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Cardiac Wire Team

You're all set!