Sara Baggio1, MD; Matteo Pagnesi2, MD; Won-Keun Kim3, MD; Andrea Scotti4, MD; Marco Barbanti5, MD; Giuliano Costa5, MD; Marianna Adamo2, MD; Ran Kornowski6, MD; Hana Vaknin Assa6, MD; Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro7; Robert Alarcón Cedeño7, MD; Federico De Marco8, MD; Matteo Casenghi8, MD; Stefan Toggweiler9, MD; Verena Veulemans10, MD; Darren Mylotte11, MD; Mattia Lunardi11, MD; Damiano Regazzoli1, MD; Bernhard Reimers1, MD; Lars Sondergaard12, MD; Maarten Vanhaverbeke12, MD, PhD; Philippe Nuyens12, MD; Diego Maffeo13, MD; Andrea Buono13, MD; Matteo Saccocci13, MD; Francesco Giannini14, MD; Luca Di Ienno14, MD; Marco Ferlini15, MD; Giuseppe Lanzillo15, MD; Alfonso Ielasi16, MD; Joachim Schofer17, MD; Christina Brinkmann17, MD; Jan Van Der Heyden18, MD; Ian Buysschaert18, MD; Amnon Eitan19, MD; Alexander Wolf20, MD; Martin Marian Adamaszek20, MD; Antonio Colombo1, MD; Azeem Latib4, MD; Antonio Mangieri1, MD
1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy and Cardio Center, Humanitas Research Hospital IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; 2. Cardiothoracic Department, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy and Department of Medical Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy; 3. Kerckhoff Heart and Thorax Center, Bad Nauheim, Germany; 4. Montefiore-Einstein Center for Heart and Vascular Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; 5. Division of Cardiology, A.O.U. Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", Catania, Italy; 6. Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; 7. Cardiology Department, University Hospital Alvaro Cunqueiro, Galicia Sur Health Research Institute, Vigo, Spain; 8. Department of Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy; 9. Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Lucerne, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland; 10. Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Medical Faculty, Düsseldorf, Germany; 11. Galway University Hospital, SAOLTA Health Care Group, and National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland; 12. Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13. Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; 14. Interventional Cardiology Unit, GVM Care & Research, Maria Cecilia Hospital, Cotignola, Italy; 15. Division of Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; 16. Clinical and Interventional Cardiology Unit, Clinical Institute Saint Ambrogio, Milan, Italy; 17. Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum, Hamburg, Germany; 18. Interventional Cardiology Unit, AZ Sint-Jan Hospital, Brugge, Belgium; 19. Department of Cardiology, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; 20. Klinik für Kardiologie, Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen, Essen, Germany
Background: The ACURATE neo2 (NEO2) and Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) bioprostheses are new-generation self-expanding valves developed for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Aims: We sought to compare the performance of the ACURATE neo2 and Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices.
Methods: The NEOPRO-2 registry retrospectively included patients who underwent TAVR for severe aortic stenosis with either the NEO2 or PRO devices between August 2017 and December 2021 at 20 centres. In-hospital and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined outcomes were evaluated. Propensity score (PS) matching and binary logistic regression were performed to adjust the treatment effect for PS quintiles. A subgroup analysis assessed the impact of aortic valve calcification.
Results: A total of 2,175 patients (NEO2: n=763; PRO: n=1,412) were included. The mean age was 82±6.2 years and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.2%. Periprocedural complications were low, and both groups achieved high rates of technical success (93.1% vs 94.1%; p=0.361) and predischarge intended valve performance (96.0% vs 94.1%; p=0.056), both in the unmatched and matched analysis (452 pairs). Device success at 30 days was comparable (84.3% vs 83.6%; p=0.688), regardless of aortic valve calcification severity (p>0.05 for interaction). A suggestion for higher VARC-3 early safety in the NEO2 group was mainly driven by reduced rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation (7.7% vs 15.6%; p<0.001).
Conclusions: This retrospective analysis reports a similar short-term performance of the ACURATE neo2 platform compared with the new-generation Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices. Randomised studies are needed to confirm our exploratory findings.
No account yet? Create my pcr account
Sign up for free!
Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases
aortic stenosisatrio-ventricular blockconduction abnormalitiesmsctparavalvular leaktavi
Read next article
ACURATE neo2 versus SAPIEN 3 Ultra for transcatheter aortic valve implantation