Clinical Outcomes of the Self-Expandable Evolut R Valve Versus the Balloon-Expandable SAPIEN 3 Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now indicated in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis and low, moderate, and high surgical risk. There are multiple types of valves available in TAVR. SAPIEN 3, and Evolut R are two of the most commonly used valves. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that compared SAPIEN 3 vs Evolut R in patients undergoing TAVR. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included major of life-threatening bleeding, risk of stroke, need of permanent pacemaker implantation, and risk of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). RESULTS: We included a total of 9 studies. One study was a randomized clinical trial, five were prospective observational studies and three were retrospective. 30-day mortality rate was similar between SAPIEN 3 and Evolut R (odds ratio (OR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.93; p = 0.47). The risk of major or life-threatening bleeding (OR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.39; p = 0.48), and the risk of stroke (OR of 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.78; p = 0.62) were also similar between the two types of valves. Compared to SAPIEN 3, Evolut R was associated with statistically significant risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR of 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; p = 0.0007), and moderate to severe PVR (OR of 2.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.74; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: At 30 day follow up, both Evolut R and SAPIEN 3 shared similar risks of 30-day mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, and stroke; however greater odds of pacemaker placement implantation and moderate to severe PVR were associated with Evolut R.

Management of resistant hypertension.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure above patient goal despite three different antihypertensive agents at optimal dose including a diuretic. Resistant hypertension is increasingly common issue in clinical practice and it is a major risk factor of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: All patients with resistant hypertension should be evaluated for possible correctable factors associated with pseudoresistance, such as poor adherence, white coat hypertension and suboptimal measurement of blood pressure. In patients with resistant hypertension, thiazide diuretics should be considered as one of the first agents, in addition to mineralocorticoids receptor antagonist. SUMMARY: Resistant hypertension can be associated with secondary cause that is why treatment can be challenging and should always include lifestyle modification and evaluation for possible secondary causes, in addition to adding a fourth agent or considering newer interventional therapies, such as renal denervation or other device-based options.