Skip to main content
. 2011 Jun 26;3(6):177–185. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v3.i6.177

Table 2.

Clinical outcomes across the most recent published studies

Year published Patients Valve Access Procedural success (%) 30-d mortality (%) 1-yr mortality (%)
PARTNER EU[55] 2010 61 ES TF 91 8.1 21.3
SOURCE Registry[56] 2010 463 ES TF 95.2 6.3 -
PARTNER cohort B[11] 2010 179 ES TF - 5 30.7
Rodés-Cabau et al[24] 2010 168 ES TF 90.5 9.5 25
PARTNER cohort A[12] 2011 244 ES TF - 3.3 22.2
PARTNER EU[55] 2010 69 ES TA 91 18.8 51.7
SOURCE Registry[56] 2010 575 ES TA 92.7 10.3 -
Rodés-Cabau et al[24]1 2010 177 ES TA 96.1 11.3 23
Wong et al[45]1 2010 60 ES TA 98.3 18.3 -
PARTNER cohort A[12] 2011 104 ES TA - 3.8 29
Grube et al[43] 2008 1022 CS TF 91.2 10.8 -
Piazza et al[57] 2008 646 CS TF 97.2 8 -
Avanzas et al[58] 2010 108 CS 103 TF/5 TS 98.1 7.4 17.7
Tamburino et al[27] 2011 663 CS 599 TF/64 TS 98 5.4 15
1

Dr. Wong and Dr. Rodés-Cabau are from the same centre, probably patients overlapped in these two studies;

2

Results referred to the third generation Corevalve ReValving System (CS) device only. ES: Edwards SAPIEN; TF: Transfemoral; TA: Transapical; TS: Trans-subclavian.