Search

Background: Some patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have excessively large annuli (ELA) without device options according to current sizing charts. This retrospective study aims to summarize the presentation and outcomes of ELA patients receiving first-generation self-expanding valves., Methods: The TAVR database was reviewed in search for cases of self-expanding valves. Patients who had annuli exceeding the perimeter limit on the device sizing chart were referred to as the ELA group. Patients who had annuli within the range covered by the two largest sizes and received the corresponding valve size served as the control group (CG). Baseline, procedures, outcomes, and imaging characteristics on multislice computed tomography (MSCT), such as native anatomy and postimplant stent geometry, were compared., Results: A total of 28 patients were included in the ELA group and 82 in the CG. The patients in the ELA group were younger than those in the CG (72.5 ± 6.2 vs. 75.4 ± 5.8 years, P = 0.03). The median intended perimeter oversizing in relation to the annulus in the ELA group was much smaller than in the CG (-0.4 [-4.6, 4.1] % vs. 16.1 [11.7, 20.8] %, P < 0.01). The calcium burden in the aortic root was around 1.3-fold greater in the ELA group than the CG (756.0 [534.5, 1670.9] vs. 582.1 [310.3, 870.9] mm 3 , P = 0.01). The need for second valve implantation was higher in ELA (21.4% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.23) but no valve embolization was encountered. The 1‑year follow-up was comparable, including >mild paravalvular leak., Conclusion: Under cautious patient selection using MSCT, TAVR with self-expanding valves in patients with ELA appears feasible. Supra-annular structures likely provide the extra anchoring., (© 2020. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: The 3rd generations of transcatheter heart valve system, including Edwards SAPIEN S3 (ES3) and Medtronic's Evolut R, has been developed to specifically improve the safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this work was to provide a summary effect estimate of the peri-procedural characteristics and clinical outcome of patients treated with ES3 versus the Evolut R., Methods: We conducted a literature search of PubMed, Ovid and EMBASE (2002 to 2018). Two authors extracted the data independently. The safety and feasibility of Sapien 3 and Evolut R were compared by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in inverse variance method., Results: After a multi-step assessment, a total 6 studies were finally included, yielding 1,664 patients, of which, 768 (46%) used ES3 and 896 (54%) used Evolut R. There was no statistical difference with device success rate (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.70-1.91, I2 =0%), 30-day mortality [OR: 0.72 (0.33-1.57), I2 =0%], pre-dilation rate, 30-day stroke, bleeding complication (BC) (major and life-threating), major vascular complication (VC), and paravalvular leakage between the two groups. However, the ES3 group was associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), higher mean aortic valve gradient and better mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after TAVR procedure. Moreover, the Evolut R group had a higher rate of post-dilation and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI)., Conclusions: Both devices had demonstrated excellent procedural success rate and short-term safety. At 30-day follow-up, both devices shared similar rates of mortality, BC, VC, stroke, and paravalvular leakage (PVL). However, the rate of AKI was higher in the ES3 group, and the rate of PPM was higher in the Evolut R group.

Objectives: We evaluated the safety and usefulness of preparatory anatomical reshaping with a geometric hourglass-shaped balloon to optimize transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis., Background: TAVR has been increasingly performed for BAV stenosis; however, technical challenges remain. Procedural results are suboptimal given unfavorable valvular anatomies., Methods: Eligible patients with BAV stenosis were enrolled to undergo aortic valve predilatation with the hourglass-shaped TAV8 balloon before TAVR using the self-expandable Venus A-Valve. Procedural details and outcomes were compared to a sequential group of patients with BAV who underwent TAVR with the same device following preparatory dilatation using a cylindrical balloon., Results: A total of 22 patients were enrolled in the TAV8 group and 53 were included in the control group. Valve downsizing was less common in the TAV8 group (36.4 vs. 67.9%; p = .012). Stable valve release and optimal implant depth were consistently achieved in the TAV8 group with no requirement for a second valve (0 vs. 17.0%; p = .039) and with higher device success rates (100.0 vs 77.4%; p = .014). Residual aortic regurgitation graded as ≥mild was less common in the TAV8 group (13.6 vs 45.3%; p = .009). Mortality was similar (0 vs. 3.8%; p = 1); no major/disabling stroke or conversion to open-heart surgery was seen in either group within 30 days., Conclusions: Compared with standard cylindrical balloon valvuloplasty, preparatory reshaping with the hourglass-shaped balloon before self-expandable TAVR in BAV was associated with significantly better procedural results and may encourage more promising outcomes., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: The authors sought to better understand the stent geometry of the Lotus valve after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and its potential implications for valve size selection., Background: The authors hypothesized that the greatest interference between the frame and aortic valvar complex occurs across the aortic valve leaflets., Methods: The authors retrospectively analyzed the multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scans of 32 consecutive patients undergoing Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) implantation. The prosthesis cross section was analyzed at 3-mm increments along its length. The plane where the frame had the smallest area was defined as the waist. The corresponding plane of the waist on pre-procedural MDCT was identified by surrounding structures such as calcium deposits, commissural fusion, and commissural gaps, and was referred to as the supra-annulus. The spline of the supra-annulus was circumscribed with reference to the post-implant stent geometry at the waist., Results: The waist was 5.8 ± 1.7 mm higher than the native annulus on post-procedural MDCT. The waist had a nearly 2-fold larger compression rate than the stent at the native annulus level (36.3 ± 10.4% vs. 18.9 ± 9.6%; p < 0.01), irrespective of valve morphologies. The supra-annulus was 5.9 ± 1.6 mm higher than the annulus on pre-procedural MDCT. Patients had an approximately 17% decrease in area from the annulus to the supra-annulus (18.3 ± 4.4% for bicuspid morphology and 16.0 ± 3.5% for tricuspid morphology)., Conclusions: Major interference between the implanted prosthesis and anatomy occurred at a level above the annulus. The decrease in area from the annulus to supra-annulus may explain the feasibility of implanting a smaller valve than that suggested by traditional annular measurements., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Studies of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) specifically for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients are lacking. We aim to delineate possible aspects that might affect the incidence of PPI in a retrospective cohort of BAV patients treated with early-generation self-expanding devices., Methods: A total of 80 patients with bicuspid morphology who successfully underwent TAVR by self-expanding devices without prior PPI were included. Baseline clinical, echocardiographic, and angiographic characteristics, procedural and post-procedural details were collected., Results: The incidence of PPI after early-generation self-expanding valves in this BAV cohort was 26.3%. Baseline characteristics were comparable between patients requiring PPI post-TAVR or not. Perimeter oversizing greater than 20% significantly increased the risk of PPI compared with an oversizing of 10-20% (OR 5.08 [1.22, 21.07], P = 0.03). The proportion of patients with a depth of implantation greater than 6 mm was significantly higher in those who required PPI (82.4% vs 54.3%, P = 0.04). When testing the impact of depth of implantation >6 mm and oversizing in different morphologies, only in type 1 bicuspid patients and by oversizing>20% increased the risk of PPI (OR 12.00 [1.25, 115.36], P = 0.03) compared with an oversizing of 10-20%., Conclusions: Excessive perimeter oversizing in relation to aortic annulus and depth of implantation greater than 6 mm should be avoided to improve PPI post-TAVR for BAV patients receiving self-expanding devices, especially for type 1 BAV., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis has been increasingly recognized as a common imaging finding after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in recent studies. This finding has raised concerns over TAVR valve durability and debates on optimal postprocedural antithrombotic regime. Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and the associated reduced leaflet motion (RELM) were noted as computed tomography hallmarks of the phenomenon. The coexistence of HALT and significant RELM has been suggested as a threshold for reporting of subclinical leaflet thrombosis. This methodology may contribute to the standardization of reporting for research collaboration, hence the better understanding and management of this common yet largely unknown phenomenon., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, predictors and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A total of 30 articles incorporating 4,691 patients were identified. The pooled incidences of overall, moderate and severe PPM following TAVR were 33.0%, 25.0% and 11.0% respectively. Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) had lower incidence of overall (32% vs: 40%, P < 0.0001) and moderate (23% vs 32%, P < 0.0001) than Edwards Sapien (ESV). PPM was associated with a younger age, smaller annulus diameter and lower left ventricular ejection fraction in comparison with those patients without PPM. Post-dilation (OR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68, p < 0.001) during TAVR would decrease the incidence of PPM. Although PPM was common after TAVR, no significant differences were observed both in short- and mid-term all-cause mortality (30 day: OR: 1.1, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.73 and 2 year: OR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.38) between patients with PPM and those without PPM. In conclusion, despite being common after TAVR, the incidence of PPM was lower than that of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and decreased with the experience accumulating, and PPM was not seen to impact on short- and mid-term survival, regardless of its magnitude.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be an effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis who are deemed high risk or inoperable. Currently, TAVI procedures in China mostly make use of the domestic Venus A-Valve and the CoreValve; however, there is no data on their comparative performance., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing TAVI with the aforementioned devices were included. The outcomes were reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC) definitions., Results: A total of 54 TAVI procedures were performed, 27 with the CoreValve and the other 27 with the Venus A-Valve. An additional valve was required in 4 (14.8%) and 3 (11.1%) patients, and the VARC-2 device success rates were 81.5 and 85.2%, respectively. The incidences of common complications were similar, except for the significantly less frequent pacemaker insertion in the Venus A-Valve group (7.4 vs. 37.0%, P = 0.03). Within 30 days, 2 (3.7%) patients died, 1 in each group, and both had a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). No other serious complications, such as annular rupture, coronary obstruction and aortic dissection, occurred in the 32 BAV patients treated with the Venus A-Valve (14) or the CoreValve (18). After 2-years of follow-up, there was no significant difference between CoreValve group and Venus-A group (11.1 vs. 7.4%, P = 0.64)., Conclusion: TAVI with the domestic Venus A-Valve is feasible, safe, and can produce favorable short-term outcomes comparable to those with the CoreValve in inoperable or high-risk patients with tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon predilation (BP) is scarce. A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and major conference proceedings was performed from January 2002 to July 2015. There were 18 studies incorporating 2,443 patients included in the present study. No differences were observed in the baseline characteristics between patients without BP (no-BP) and with BP. Compared with BP, no-BP had a shorter procedure time (no-BP vs BP, 124.2 vs 138.8 minutes, p = 0.008), used less-contrast medium (no-BP vs BP, 126.3 vs 156.3 ml, p = 0.0005) and had a higher success rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% CI 1.40 to -3.58). In addition, no-BP was associated with lower incidences of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.67), grade 2 or greater paravalvular leakage (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83), and stroke (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.0). Furthermore, no-BP was associated with a 0.6-fold decreased risk for 30-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92). However, the difference in the risk for permanent pacemaker implantation, grade 2, or higher aortic regurgitation, stroke was noted to be significant only in the subgroup of the CoreValve-dominating studies. In conclusion, no-BP before transcatheter aortic valve implantation was not only safe and feasible but was also associated with fewer complications and short-term mortality in selected patients especially using self-expandable valve., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)