A comparison of the fully repositionable and retrievable B oston L otus and direct flow medical valves for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis: A single center experience

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions Vol. 91; no. 5; pp. 966 - 974
• Main Authors: Giannini, Francesco, Latib, Azeem, Montorfano, Matteo, Ruparelia, Neil, Romano, Vittorio, Longoni, Matteo, Ferri, Luca, Jabbour, Richard, Mangieri, Antonio, Regazzoli, Damiano, Ancona, Marco, Buzzatti, Nicola, Azzalini, Lorenzo, Tanaka, Akihito, Agricola, Eustachio, Chieffo, Alaide, Alfieri, Ottavio, Colombo, Antonio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.04.2018
• ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27319

Abstract Background Second generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices have been designed to reduce the rate of paravalvular leak (PVL) and other complications. An important technological advancement has been the ability to fully reposition devices to facilitate optimal implantation depth and position to reduce the likelihood of PVL. Objectives To compare procedural and 30‐day outcomes according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)‐2 criteria following TAVI with the fully repositionable and retrievable Lotus and DFM devices. Methods and Results 175 patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent transfemoral TAVI with the Lotus ( n  = 60) and DFM ( n  = 115) valve. Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the two groups. All devices were successfully implanted, with one case of valve embolization in the Lotus group. Device success (95 vs. 98.2%, P  = 0.89), VARC‐defined combined safety (90 vs. 93%, P  = 0.48), and clinical efficacy (86.7 vs. 90.4%, P  = 0.65) rates at 30‐days were similar between Lotus and DFM groups. There was no severe PVL; one patient in both Lotus and DFM group developed moderate PVL after the procedure. The Lotus valve was associated with a higher rate of new pacemaker implantation (37.3 vs. 11.2%, P  < 0.001) and a lower mean aortic gradient (9.4 ± 5 vs. 12.3 ± 5, P  < 0.001) at 30‐days as compared with the DFM valve. Conclusions In this single‐center, retrospective analysis, both Lotus and DFM devices demonstrated excellent device success, safety and efficacy at 30‐day follow‐up. The DFM valve was associated with minimally higher transvalvular gradients but lower new pacemaker implantation rates when compared to the Lotus valve.