Objectives To compare incidence of aortic regurgitation (AR), paravalvular AR and valvular performance with Doppler hemodynamic parameters following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with Edwards valve (EV) versus CoreValve (CV). Currently, there are scarce data on post-TAVR echocardiographic outcomes comparing EV and CV. Methods PubMed and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through May 2015. Twenty studies (n = 11,244) comparing TAVR procedure that used EV (n = 6445) and CV (n = 4799) were included. End points were post-TAVR moderate to severe AR and paravalvular AR, effective orifice area (EOA), mean trans-aortic pressure gradient (MPG), peak trans-aortic pressure gradient (PPG) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed and p < 0.05 was considered as a level of significance. Results Moderate to severe AR and paravalvular AR were significantly lower in EV group (RR: 0.57, CI: 0.52–0.63, p < 0.00001 and RR: 0.40, CI: 0.25–0.63, p < 0.0001 respectively) compared to CV group. EOA and PPG were not significantly different between EV and CV groups. MPG was significantly lower among patients in CV group (MD: 1.08, CI: 0.05–2.10, p = 0.04). LVEF was significantly higher in patients in EV group (MD: 2.26, CI: 0.77–3.74, p = 0.03). Conclusions This study showed CV is associated with higher incidence of post-TAVR moderate to severe paravalvular AR. Echocardiographic valvular performance measures (MPG, LVEF) showed minimal but significant difference, which may not be clinically significant.

Objectives: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for surgery, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative procedure using EV or CV. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare 1-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) between Edwards valve (EV) and Medtronic CoreValve (CV). Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through December 2014. Twenty seven studies (n = 12,249) comparing TAVR procedure that used EV (n = 5745) and CV (n = 6504) were included. End points were procedural success rates, post-procedural mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, major bleeding, major vascular complications, incidence of new permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement and new left bundle branch block (LBBB). The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed and p < 0.05 was considered for significance. Results: There were no significant differences between EV and CV for post-procedural in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates (p = 0.53, 0.33 and 0.94 respectively), cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.61), stroke (p = 0.54), major bleeding (p = 0.25) and major vascular complications (p = 0.27). MI was significantly lower with EV compared to CV (OR: 0.56, CI: 0.35-0.89, p = 0.01). Placement of new PPM and new onset LBBB were significantly higher in CV compared to EV (OR: 3.35, CI: 2.96-3.79, p < 0.00001 and OR: 6.55, CI: 4.76-9.03, p < 0.00001 respectively). Conclusions: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that TAVR procedure using CV may be associated with a higher incidence of MI, new PPM placement, and new onset LBBB compared to EV. However, the type of valve placed does not affect mortality.