Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes Between the Navitor and Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes Between the Navitor and Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses
Do you wish to request the book?
A Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes Between the Navitor and Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes Between the Navitor and Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses
2025
Overview
Background: The novel Navitor intra-annular self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis is designed to improve coronary access, reduce paravalvular leaks, and enhance hemodynamic performance. Comparative data with the established Evolut platform (R, Pro, FX) are still lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of Navitor (NAV) versus Evolut transcatheter heart valves. Methods: We conducted a single-center analysis of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR between January 2015 and May 2024. A propensity score matching protocol including 18 baseline variables was used to balance baseline characteristics. Clinical outcomes were assessed using VARC-3 criteria. Results: Of 1067 TAVR patients, 210 were analyzed after matching—70 with the Nav valve and 140 with the Evolut valve. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, with a mean age of 80.9 ± 6.5 years in the NAV group and 80.7 ± 6.7 years in the Evolut group (p = 0.9). Both groups had an intermediate STS predicted risk of mortality, 3.9 ± 3.4% for NAV and 3.9 ± 3.2% for Evolut (p = 1.0). The effective aortic annulus diameter was comparable between the NAV (23.9 ± 1.5 mm) and Evolut group (23.9 ± 2.4 mm, p = 0.8). Hemodynamic performance at discharge was similar, with mean gradients of 7.5 ± 2.8 mmHg (NAV) vs. 7.4 ± 3.7 mmHg (Evolut, p = 0.9). Valve orifice areas and paravalvular leak rates showed no difference between the groups. Device success rates at discharge were good for both THVs: 89.3% for Evolut and 91.4% for NAV (p = 0.8). Disabling stroke occurred less frequently in the NAV group (0.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.033), while other early safety outcomes and 30-day mortalities were similar. Conclusions: The Navitor valve offers comparable hemodynamic performance, paravalvular leak rates, and procedural success to the Evolut platform. While early safety outcomes were largely similar, the Navitor valve was associated with a lower 30-day disabling stroke rate.
