2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.08.089
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lower cardiovascular mortality with Medtronic CoreValve versus Edwards SAPIEN in patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[35][36][37] The three major experiences published thus far-the Milan experience, the Pragmatic study and the French TAVI registry -showed no significant differences in both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. [36,38,39] However, likewise there are studies with contradictory results describing that patients who underwent CoreValve implantation had both lower allcause mortality (1.9% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.032) and cardiovascular mortality (0.0% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.006) at 30 days follow-up, [40] and in a randomized trial published in 2014, describing that device success was significantly more likely with the balloon-expandable rather than the self-expanding valve system (95.9% vs. 77.5%), with a lower risk on aortic regurgitation (4.1% vs. 18.3%). In this randomized trial, placement of a new permanent pacemaker was less frequent in the balloon-expandable valve cohort.…”
Section: Corevalvementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[35][36][37] The three major experiences published thus far-the Milan experience, the Pragmatic study and the French TAVI registry -showed no significant differences in both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. [36,38,39] However, likewise there are studies with contradictory results describing that patients who underwent CoreValve implantation had both lower allcause mortality (1.9% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.032) and cardiovascular mortality (0.0% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.006) at 30 days follow-up, [40] and in a randomized trial published in 2014, describing that device success was significantly more likely with the balloon-expandable rather than the self-expanding valve system (95.9% vs. 77.5%), with a lower risk on aortic regurgitation (4.1% vs. 18.3%). In this randomized trial, placement of a new permanent pacemaker was less frequent in the balloon-expandable valve cohort.…”
Section: Corevalvementioning
confidence: 99%