Purpose: The purpose of this article is to review the complications and outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) between two different valves produced by Medtronic and Edwards Life Science companies, to determine if there is a clinically significant difference.
Method: A PubMed literature search was conducted with the following search terms; TAVR, Medtronic, Edwards, complications, morbidity, and mortality. Nine pertinent articles were retrieved and served as the basis for this clinical review.
Results: Nationally recorded TAVR data, along with several clinical trials comparing valve models reveal that the self-expandable valve design, seen in Medtronics valve, has a higher prevalence of post-operative dysrhythmias and requirement of permanent pacemaker compared to the balloon-expandable valve design
Conclusion: These companies which are the leading producers in TAVR valves have different designs and mechanisms of implantation, each with their own unique complications and risks. However, the greater need for a post-procedure permanent pacemaker in the Medtronic valve comes with significant impacts, both on patient outcome and healthcare costs. Dysrhythmias after TAVR is one of the few complications that have failed to show improvement even with the development of new generation models. These findings emphasize the need for further research on the prevention, prediction, treatment of TAVR complications, especially as the patient population undergoing TAVR is expanding exponentially with the approval for implantation in younger, lower risk patents.
McRory D. Impact of Valve Choice on Outcomes in TAVR Procedure. Lynchburg Journal of Medical Science. 2021; 4(1).
Available when accessing via a campus IP address or logged in with a University of Lynchburg email address.
Off-campus users can also use 'Off-campus Download' button above for access.