throbber
6/23/2017 Eurolntervention Comparison of the new balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve with the self-expanding Medtronic corevalve for transfemoral aortic...
`
`Home / Archives
`
`/ Abstracts EuroPCR 2015 / Comparison of the new balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve with
`
`/
`
`Comparison of the new balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve with the self-
`expanding Medtronic corevalve for transfemoral aortic valve implantation in 200
`patients
`
`Published on 15 May 2015
`
`Gonska B., Rodewald C., Trepte U., Baarts J., Seeger J., Markovic 8., Scharnbeck D., Rottbauer W., W6hrle J.
`
`University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
`
`Euro15A—P08291
`Ill-I'D
`
`PCR
`Interventions for structural heart disease
`
`Comparison of the new balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve with the self-expanding Medtronic corevalve for transfemoral aortic valve
`implantation in 200 patients
`
`Gonska B., Rodewald C., Trepte U., Baarts J., Seeger J., Markovic 8., Scharnbeck D., Rottbauer W., W6hrle J.
`
`University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
`
`In the randomised CHOICE trial device success was significantly higher with the balloon expandable Edwards Sapien XT (EXT) compared with
`Aims:
`the self-expanding CoreValve (CV) prosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The new
`Edwards Sapien 3 valve was optimised regarding design to minimise the risk for paravalvular aortic regurgitation. We compared the outcome of the E83
`with the CoreValve in patients undergoing TAVI.
`
`Methods and results: The first 100 consecutive patients treated with the E83 were compared with the last 100 consecutive patients treated with the
`CoreValve (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02162069). The mean STS-Score for mortality of the population was 10.217.9%. We evaluated post-
`procedural aortic regurgitation, rate of permanent pacemaker implantation, and device success according to VARC criteria. Device size was based on
`multislice computer tomography performed with a 256 Philips Brilliance iCT scanner. Measurements of aortic annulus,
`left ventricular outflow tract
`(LVOT) were performed with dedicated software (3mensio Structural Heart, version 7.0). Baseline characteristics were similar between the CoreValve
`and E83 population: age 8116 vs. 8216 years (p=0.24), female 49% vs. 52% (p=0.67), diabetes mellitus 34% vs. 38% (p=0.56), coronary artery disease
`61% vs. 60% (p=0.89), history of cardiac surgery 14% vs. 9% (p=0.27), pulmonary disease 36% vs. 60% (p<0.01). Also the following computer
`tomography acquired parameters did not differ significantly between the EXT and E83 population: aortic annulus area derived diameter 25.3122 vs.
`24.7124 mm (p=0.05), aortic annulus perimeter derived diameter 26.0123 vs. 25.4125 mm (p=0.07), aortic annulus area 508189 vs. 483196 mm
`(p=006), LVOT area derived diameter 25.4129 vs. 24.6126 mm (p=0.04), LVOT perimeter derived diameter 26.413.1 vs. 25.6126 mm (p=0.04), LVOT
`area 5151121 vs. 4801101 mm (p=0.03), heavy calcification of the aortic annulus (Rosenhek Grade IV) 85% vs. 88% (ns). Size of the CoreValve was 23
`mm in 2%, 26 mm in 17%, 29 mm in 75% and 31 mm in 6%. Numbers for E83 were 29%, 50% and 21%, respectively. Post dilation was necessary in
`11% after CoreValve implantation and in no patient after E83 implantation (p<0.01). Rate of device success according to VARC was significantly higher
`in the E83 population with 93% vs. 76% in the CV group (p<0.01). There was no annulus rupture, coronary obstruction or periprocedural death. The
`rate of postprocedural nondisabling or disabling stroke was similar (CV 2% vs. E83 4%, p=0.40). There was a statistical significance in the rate of
`paravalvular aortic regurgitation by postprocedural echocardiography with moderate or severe aortic regurgitation of 20% in the CV population vs. 1% in
`the E83 population (p<0.01). Numbers for mild regurgitation were 43% vs. 31% (p=0.22), none or trace 37% vs. 68% (p<0.01), respectively. Life
`threatening bleeding according to VARC was similar (CV 1% vs. E83 0%, p=0.37). There was a statistically significant lower rate of post-procedural new
`pacemaker implantation for the E83 with 15% vs. 31% for the CV (p<0.01).
`
`Conclusions: Transfemoral TAVI with the new E83 compared with the CoreValve was associated with a statistical significant lower rate of moderate or
`severe aortic regurgitation, significant lower need for pacemaker implantation and a significant higher rate of device success according to VARC.
`Edwards Lifesciences v. Boston Scientific Scimed
`
`IPR2017-00060, US. Patent 8,992,608, Exhibit 2061
`https://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/AbstractsEuroPCR2015/abstracts-europcr-2015/POS291/com parison-of—the— new-bal loon-expandable—edwards-sap. . .
`Page 1 of 2
`
`1/2
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`6/23/2017 Eurolntervention Comparison of the new balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve with the self-expanding Medtronic corevalve for transfemoral aortic...
`
`Share this article:
`
`Facebook
`
`Tweet
`
`Linkedln
`
`Google +
`
`Email
`
`https://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/AbstractsEuroPCR2015/abstracts-europcr-2015/P08291/com parison—of—the— new-bal Icon-expandable—edwards-sap. . . 2/2
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket