Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Cardiol. Dec 26, 2016; 8(12): 735-745
Published online Dec 26, 2016. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i12.735
Published online Dec 26, 2016. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i12.735
Table 7 Summary of studies comparing the rate of permanent pacemaker between the S3 and XT device
PPM | S3 | XT | P value | Predictor/comments |
Binder et al[40] 2015 Circulation interventions | 17% | 13% | 0.01 | Predictors: Depth, RBBB |
Binder et al[14] 2013 JACC interventions | 13.30% | Excluded patient with LBBB, PR > 200 ms No predictors studied | ||
Husser et al[25] 2015 JACC interventions | 15.20% | Predictors not studied | ||
Binder et al[40] 2015 EuroIntervention | 20.70% | Predictor > 8 mm depth of implants | ||
Nijhoff et al[17] 2015 Circulation interventions | 9.80% | 8.80% | 0.94 | High implants: 80/20 in aorta as mentioned by authors |
- Citation: Sawaya FJ, Spaziano M, Lefèvre T, Roy A, Garot P, Hovasse T, Neylon A, Benamer H, Romano M, Unterseeh T, Morice MC, Chevalier B. Comparison between the SAPIEN S3 and the SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valves: A single-center experience. World J Cardiol 2016; 8(12): 735-745
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8462/full/v8/i12/735.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v8.i12.735