Skip to content

Comparative Observational Study of Supra-annular Versus Intra-annular Self-expanding Aortic Valves in Routine Clinical Practice

Comparative Observational Study of Supra-annular Versus Intra-annular Self-expanding Aortic Valves in Routine Clinical Practice

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07506382
Acronym
NEOVALVE
Enrollment
419
Registered
2026-04-01
Start date
2026-02-10
Completion date
2028-03-01
Last updated
2026-04-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Keywords

self expandable devices, intra annular design, supra annular design, procedural success, hemodynamics

Brief summary

We proposed to compare in an observational study procedural success at one month (VARC 3 criteria) and clinical and echographic follow-up at 6 months between 2 self expandable devices in TAVR : the supra annular Evolut device (Medtronic) vs the intra anular NAVITOR device (Abott)

Detailed description

Compared with balloon-expandable valves, self-expandable supra annular devices (Mertronic Evolut) offer superior post-procedural hemodynamics in TAVR and are, therefore, expected to play a growing role in clinical practice particularly in small aortic anatomies . However, the relatively long stent frame of self-expandable valves posed challenges for coronary access after implantation and PPI rates remain higher, despite lower implantation height with the cusp overlap technique The Navitor valves (Abbott Structural Valve) is a new generation intra-annular self-expandable device with tall stent frame but larger stent cells and shorter outer skirt which may be more favorable for future coronary access than the Evolut FX valves, particularly in patients with lower coronary heights . The Navitor platform showed satisfying data in tricuspid anatomy, providing intra-annular leaflets, an innovative sealing cuff, and repositionability .However this platform showed a high rate of PPI that could be related to the need for lower implantation to stabilize the device (first generation) Considering the lack of specific data regarding the compared performance of the 2 plateforms including latest generation devices, we aimed to evaluate procedural success, clinical and hemodynamic results, and conductive disorders between the 2 platforms in an observational real life study

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

University Hospital, Montpellier
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* all patients elligible for TAVR witn a self expandable device

Exclusion criteria

* femoral access not suitable * valve in valve procedures

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Device success according to VARC 3 criteria1 month follow up

Countries

France

Contacts

CONTACTFlorence LECLERCQ, MD
f-leclercq@chu-montpellier.fr+33467336212

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Apr 2, 2026