JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2021
Double S-Curve Versus Cusp-Overlap Technique: Defining the Optimal Fluoroscopic Projection for TAVR With a Self-Expanding Device.
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.
Ben-Shoshan Jeremy, Alosaimi Hind, Lauzier Pascal Thériault, Pighi Michele, Talmor-Barkan Yeela, Overtchouk Pavel, Martucci Giuseppe, Spaziano Marco, Finkelstein Ariel, Gada Hemal, Piazza Nicolo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance between transcatheter aortic valve implantation angles generated by the "double S-curve" and "cusp-overlap" techniques.
BACKGROUND: The "double S-curve" and "cusp-overlap" methods aim to define optimal fluoroscopic projections for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expandable device.
METHODS: The study included 100 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with self-expanding device planned by multidetector computed tomography. TAVR was performed using the double S-curve model, as a view in which both the aortic valve annulus and delivery catheter planes are displayed perpendicularly on fluoroscopy. Optimal projection according to the cusp-overlap technique was retrospectively generated by overlapping the right and left cups on the multidetector computed tomography annular plane. The angular difference between methods was assessed in spherical 3 dimensions and on the left and right anterior oblique (RAO) and cranial and caudal (CAU) axes.
RESULTS: The double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods provided views located in the same quadrant, mostly the RAO and CAU, in 92% of patients with a median 3-dimensional angular difference of 10.0° (interquartile range: 5.5° to 17.9°). The 3-dimensional deviation between the average angulation obtained by each method was not statistically significant (1.49°; p = 0.349). No significant differences in average coordinates were noted between the double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods (RAO: 14.7 ± 15.2 vs. 12.9 ± 12.5; p = 0.36; and CAU: 27.0 ± 9.4 vs. 26.9 ± 10.4; p = 0.90). TAVR using the double S-curve was associated with 98% device success, low complication rate, and absence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak.
CONCLUSIONS: The double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods provide comparable TAVR projections, mostly RAO and CAU. TAVR using the double S-curve model is associated with a high rate of device success and low rate of procedural complications.
BACKGROUND: The "double S-curve" and "cusp-overlap" methods aim to define optimal fluoroscopic projections for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expandable device.
METHODS: The study included 100 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with self-expanding device planned by multidetector computed tomography. TAVR was performed using the double S-curve model, as a view in which both the aortic valve annulus and delivery catheter planes are displayed perpendicularly on fluoroscopy. Optimal projection according to the cusp-overlap technique was retrospectively generated by overlapping the right and left cups on the multidetector computed tomography annular plane. The angular difference between methods was assessed in spherical 3 dimensions and on the left and right anterior oblique (RAO) and cranial and caudal (CAU) axes.
RESULTS: The double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods provided views located in the same quadrant, mostly the RAO and CAU, in 92% of patients with a median 3-dimensional angular difference of 10.0° (interquartile range: 5.5° to 17.9°). The 3-dimensional deviation between the average angulation obtained by each method was not statistically significant (1.49°; p = 0.349). No significant differences in average coordinates were noted between the double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods (RAO: 14.7 ± 15.2 vs. 12.9 ± 12.5; p = 0.36; and CAU: 27.0 ± 9.4 vs. 26.9 ± 10.4; p = 0.90). TAVR using the double S-curve was associated with 98% device success, low complication rate, and absence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak.
CONCLUSIONS: The double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods provide comparable TAVR projections, mostly RAO and CAU. TAVR using the double S-curve model is associated with a high rate of device success and low rate of procedural complications.