Medtronic plc reported data from a head-to-head trial backing its Evolut TAVR system against competitor Edwards Lifesciences Corp.’s Sapien platform, and the data showed particular promise of the Evolut in patients with a small aortic annulus, which would appear to be most beneficial for women in particular.
Medtronic plc got a jump on its cardiology competitors with big news ahead of the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) conference that starts on Oct 24 in San Francisco, with U.S. FDA approval of its Aurora extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV-ICD). The system delivers defibrillation and heart pacing without placing wires in the heart or vasculature. That puts it in direct competition with Boston Scientific Corp.’s Emblem S-ICD, currently the only player in the market.
Medtronic plc presented 10-year results from its ongoing trial comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement. The results support use of the Medtronic Corevalve platform for lower risk of severe valve deterioration compared to surgical replacement.
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) devices are widely believed to be considerably more durable than transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, but five-year data for Medtronic plc’s Corevalve Evolut, presented this week at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies Conference in Washington, seem to suggest that TAVR devices are closing that gap.
The U.S. FDA announced Feb. 27 that it is aware of data that suggest that the Trifecta surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) devices are potentially prone to early structural deterioration that could compromise both valve performance and valve durability.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to grow, so it is little surprise that the 2022 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) annual meeting featured multiple presentations about TAVR-related devices and outcomes. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association’s latest guidelines recommends TAVR for patients over age 80 and surgery for those under age 65. Those in the middle can go either way, depending on comorbidities and patient preferences.
It has long been known that patients recover more quickly from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) than from open-heart surgery for valve replacement (SAVR) and results at two years looked good, too, with very similar outcomes. The question remained what happens in the longer term?
Much of the noise surrounding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. its surgical counterpart has to do with residual paravalvular leak. However, a new paper in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) seems to have overwritten that consideration. The underlying registry study indicates that procedural success and outcomes at one year are superior in TAVR to in SAVR – yet another piece of evidence that seemingly tips the scales even more toward TAVR devices.
Medical science continues to define the relative risks of progressively smaller patient subsets across the disease spectrum, but this is particularly true of late in connection with aortic stenosis (AS).
Physicians who perform a variety of device implant procedures face a difficult choice in determining whether a patient should be treated. A new article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) recommends that patients who ordinarily would be candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) might instead be referred for the transcatheter alternative.