Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices in Aortic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis of 42,105 Patients

Ala Abu Dogosh, Ahlam Adawi, Aref El Nasasra, Carlos Cafri, Orit Barrett, Gal Tsaban, Rami Barashi, Edward Koifman*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: In recent years, trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an excellent alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, there are several approved devices on the market, yet comparisons among them are scarce. We aimed to compare the various devices via a network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies that provide comparisons of either a single TAVI with SAVR or two different TAVI devices and report clinical outcomes. Results: We included 12 RCT and 13 propensity-matched studies comprising 42,105 patients, among whom 27,134 underwent TAVI using various valve systems (Sapien & Sapien XT, Sapien 3, Corvalve, Evolut & Evolut Pro, Acurate Neo, Portico). The mean follow-up time was 23.4 months. Sapien 3 was superior over SAVR in the reduction of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.53; 95%CrI 0.31–0.91), while no significant difference existed between other devices and SAVR. Aortic regurgitation was more frequent among TAVI devices compared to SAVR. There was no significant difference between the various THVs and SAVR in cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, NYHA class III-IV, and endocarditis. Conclusions: Newer generation TAVI devices, especially Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro are associated with improved outcomes compared to SAVR and other devices of the older generation.

Original languageEnglish
Article number5299
JournalJournal of Clinical Medicine
Issue number18
StatePublished - Sep 2022


  • TAVI
  • all-cause mortality
  • aortic valve disease


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices in Aortic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis of 42,105 Patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this