CoreValve vs Sapien Outcome Predictor: Explanation and Clinical Context This tool provides a simplified risk estimate for a composite adverse outcome (including mortality, major complications such as moderate‑severe paravalvular leak, pacemaker implantation, or valve thrombosis) at 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using either a self‑expandable device (e.g., CoreValve) or a balloon‑expandable device (e.g., Sapien). The model incorporates age, STS score, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pre‑TAVR aortic regurgitation grade, and device type in order to reflect known differential outcomes between device types and patient risk profiles. Although randomized trials and registries such as the CHOICE trial and pooled analyses have shown no clear difference in 1‑year mortality between the two device types, self‑expandable valves may carry slightly higher incidence of paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker requirement. Because of this, the valve type adjustment in this model reflects a small incremental risk for self‑expandable vs balloon‑expandable devices. Importantly, patient anatomy (e.g., calcifications, annulus shape, residual eccentricity) contributes significantly to outcomes: biomechanical modelling has shown that residual bulky calcification and stent eccentricity increase risk of valve thrombosis and paravalvular leak.
Reference: No large validated risk score exists to precisely compare CoreValve vs Sapien outcome in daily practice; the data are derived from observational comparisons: Noorani A. et al. Differences in Outcomes and Indications between Sapien and CoreValve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Prostheses. Interventional Cardiology Review. 2014;9(2):121‑125.