JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2019
Current Generation Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Valve Positioning Strategies During Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedures and Clinical Outcomes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Simonato Matheus, Webb John, Bleiziffer Sabine, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Wood David, Seiffert Moritz, Schäfer Ulrich, Wöhrle Jochen, Jochheim David, Woitek Felix, Latib Azeem, Barbanti Marco, Spargias Konstantinos, Kodali Susheel, Jones Tara, Tchetche Didier, Coutinho Rafael, Napodano Massimo, Garcia Santiago, Veulemans Verena, Siqueira Dimytri, Windecker Stephan, Cerillo Alfredo, Kempfert Jörg, Agrifoglio Marco, Bonaros Nikolaos, Schoels Wolfgang, Baumbach Hardy, Schofer Joachim, Gaia Diego Felipe, Dvir Danny
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) positioning using different strategies.
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with high risk of elevated gradients.
METHODS: S3 aortic ViV procedures in stented bioprostheses were studied. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) positioning was analyzed in a centralized core lab blinded to clinical outcomes. A combined endpoint of severely elevated mean gradient (≥30 mm Hg) or pacemaker need was established. Two positioning strategies were compared: central marker method and top of S3 method. Optimal final depth was defined as S3 depth ≤20%.
RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (76.5 ± 9.7 years of age, 65.8% male, STS score 8 ± 7.6%). THVs had incomplete shortening in comparison to fully expanded valves (92 ± 3.4%), and expansion was more complete in optimal positioning cases compared with others (93.2 ± 2.7% vs. 91.5 ± 3.5%; p = 0.027). The central marker method demonstrated greater correlation with final implantation depth than the top of S3 method (R2 of 0.48 and 0.14; p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The combined endpoint rate was 4.3% in the optimal (higher than 3 mm) implantation group, 12% in the intermediate group, and 50% in the low group (p < 0.001). There were no cases of THV embolization. In cases with central marker higher than 3 mm, 72.4% had optimal final depth. In those with central marker higher than 6 mm, 90% had optimal final depth.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimal S3 positioning in aortic ViV is associated with better outcomes. Central marker positioning is more reliable than top of S3 positioning. Central marker bottom position should be 3 mm to 6 mm above the ring.
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with high risk of elevated gradients.
METHODS: S3 aortic ViV procedures in stented bioprostheses were studied. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) positioning was analyzed in a centralized core lab blinded to clinical outcomes. A combined endpoint of severely elevated mean gradient (≥30 mm Hg) or pacemaker need was established. Two positioning strategies were compared: central marker method and top of S3 method. Optimal final depth was defined as S3 depth ≤20%.
RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (76.5 ± 9.7 years of age, 65.8% male, STS score 8 ± 7.6%). THVs had incomplete shortening in comparison to fully expanded valves (92 ± 3.4%), and expansion was more complete in optimal positioning cases compared with others (93.2 ± 2.7% vs. 91.5 ± 3.5%; p = 0.027). The central marker method demonstrated greater correlation with final implantation depth than the top of S3 method (R2 of 0.48 and 0.14; p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The combined endpoint rate was 4.3% in the optimal (higher than 3 mm) implantation group, 12% in the intermediate group, and 50% in the low group (p < 0.001). There were no cases of THV embolization. In cases with central marker higher than 3 mm, 72.4% had optimal final depth. In those with central marker higher than 6 mm, 90% had optimal final depth.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimal S3 positioning in aortic ViV is associated with better outcomes. Central marker positioning is more reliable than top of S3 positioning. Central marker bottom position should be 3 mm to 6 mm above the ring.