ReviewCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Lessons Learned From the ACURATE IDE Trial for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Review in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The recent voluntary withdrawal of the ACURATE neo2 transcatheter aortic valve replacement device by Boston Scientific offers a compelling case study in the complex interplay of device design, clinical evidence, regulatory requirements, and market dynamics in modern structural heart interventions. Despite promising performance in European and Canadian registries, the ACURATE neo2 valve failed to demonstrate non-inferiority compared with commercially available balloon-expandable and self-expanding platforms in the pivotal ACURATE IDE randomized controlled trial. These results, coupled with introduction of a new regulatory requirements by the European notified body ultimately led to the global discontinuation of the platform. This review critically examines the technological characteristics of ACURATE neo2, compares it with other leading TAVR devices, and explores the potential reasons-ranging from clinical to strategic-that may have led to its market exit. Emphasis is placed on the role of randomized trials in assessing new structural therapies, including a discussion of methodological challenges and opportunities for adaptive trial designs. A structured comparison of device features and withdrawal rationales is also provided, highlighting lessons relevant to clinicians, regulators, and industry stakeholders. Ultimately, the ACURATE neo2 experience underscores the need for robust validation strategies, procedural standardization, and adaptive development pathways in a saturated and high-stakes market. Lessons learned from this platform should inform future innovation in TAVR and broader cardiovascular device development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.