JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2019
Navigating the "Optimal Implantation Depth" With a Self-Expandable TAVR Device in Daily Clinical Practice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Piayda Kerstin, Hellhammer Katharina, Veulemans Verena, Sievert Horst, Gafoor Sameer, Afzal Shazia, Hennig Inga, Makosch Matthias, Polzin Amin, Jung Christian, Westenfeld Ralf, Kelm Malte, Zeus Tobias
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to predict whether different methods of calculating the implantation depth (ID) influence clinical and hemodynamic outcome reporting in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expandable device.
BACKGROUND: Different approaches exist to calculate the ID, which may influence uniform and reliable reporting because the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) criteria do not provide specific instructions.
METHODS: The clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of 258 patients undergoing TAVR with a third-generation self-expandable device were analyzed with regard to the method used to assess the ID as follows: arithmetic mean, the arithmetic mean of the measured distances from the noncoronary cusp and the left coronary cusp to the distal prosthesis end; noncoronary cusp distance, the distance from the noncoronary cusp to the distal prosthesis end; and deepest edge, the deepest edge of the distal prosthesis end.
RESULTS: Regardless of the measurement method, the optimal ID (OID) was reached in <30% (arithmetic mean, 25.4%; noncoronary cusp distance, 28.4%; deepest edge, 20.5%; p = 0.008). The deepest edge method is the most stringent to differentiate the relevant outcome parameters, such as the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (OID 3.7% vs. no OID 14.6%; p = 0.033). The hemodynamic outcome (i.e., mean pressure gradient reduction after TAVR: OID 7.4 ± 3.4 mm Hg vs. no OID 8.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p = 0.093) was not affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The OID was reached in <30% of TAVR procedures. The various methods applied for ID calculation significantly influence the outcome reporting and do not allow a uniform perception of the ID. (Multi Modal Cardiac Imaging Prior Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation; NCT01805739).
BACKGROUND: Different approaches exist to calculate the ID, which may influence uniform and reliable reporting because the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) criteria do not provide specific instructions.
METHODS: The clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of 258 patients undergoing TAVR with a third-generation self-expandable device were analyzed with regard to the method used to assess the ID as follows: arithmetic mean, the arithmetic mean of the measured distances from the noncoronary cusp and the left coronary cusp to the distal prosthesis end; noncoronary cusp distance, the distance from the noncoronary cusp to the distal prosthesis end; and deepest edge, the deepest edge of the distal prosthesis end.
RESULTS: Regardless of the measurement method, the optimal ID (OID) was reached in <30% (arithmetic mean, 25.4%; noncoronary cusp distance, 28.4%; deepest edge, 20.5%; p = 0.008). The deepest edge method is the most stringent to differentiate the relevant outcome parameters, such as the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (OID 3.7% vs. no OID 14.6%; p = 0.033). The hemodynamic outcome (i.e., mean pressure gradient reduction after TAVR: OID 7.4 ± 3.4 mm Hg vs. no OID 8.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg; p = 0.093) was not affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The OID was reached in <30% of TAVR procedures. The various methods applied for ID calculation significantly influence the outcome reporting and do not allow a uniform perception of the ID. (Multi Modal Cardiac Imaging Prior Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation; NCT01805739).