Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2023
Cusp overlap method for self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
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.
Aljabbary Talal F, Komatsu Ikki, Ochiai Tomoki, Fremes Stephen E, Ali Noman, Burke Lucas, Peterson Mark D, Fam Neil P, Wijeysundera Harindra C, Radhakrishnan Sam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conduction disturbances and the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remains a common complication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly when self-expanding (SE) valves are used.
AIMS: We compared in-hospital and 30-day rates of new PPM implantation between patients undergoing TAVR with SE valves using the conventional three-cusp coplanar implantation technique and the cusp-overlap technique.
METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients without a pre-existing PPM who underwent a TAVR procedure with SE Evolut R or PRO valves using the cusp-overlap technique from July 2018 to September 2020 (n = 519) to patients who underwent TAVR using standard three-cusp technique from April 2016 to March 2017 (n = 128) in two high volume Canadian centers.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in baseline RBBB between the groups (10.4% vs. 13.2; p = 0.35). The rate of in-hospital new complete heart block (9.4% vs. 23.4%; p ≤ 0.001) and PPM implantation (8% vs. 21%; p ≤ 0.001) were significantly reduced when using the cusp-overlap technique. The incidence of new LBBB (30.4% vs. 29%; p = 0.73) was similar. At 30 days, the rates of new complete heart block (11% vs. 23%; p ≤ 0.001) and PPM implantation (10% vs. 21%, p ≤ 0.001) remained significantly lower in the cusp-overlap group, while the rate of new LBBB (35% vs. 30%; p = 0.73) was similar.
CONCLUSION: Cusp-overlap approach offers several potential technical advantages compared to standard three-cusp view, and may result in lower PPM rates in TAVR with SE Evolut valve.
AIMS: We compared in-hospital and 30-day rates of new PPM implantation between patients undergoing TAVR with SE valves using the conventional three-cusp coplanar implantation technique and the cusp-overlap technique.
METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients without a pre-existing PPM who underwent a TAVR procedure with SE Evolut R or PRO valves using the cusp-overlap technique from July 2018 to September 2020 (n = 519) to patients who underwent TAVR using standard three-cusp technique from April 2016 to March 2017 (n = 128) in two high volume Canadian centers.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in baseline RBBB between the groups (10.4% vs. 13.2; p = 0.35). The rate of in-hospital new complete heart block (9.4% vs. 23.4%; p ≤ 0.001) and PPM implantation (8% vs. 21%; p ≤ 0.001) were significantly reduced when using the cusp-overlap technique. The incidence of new LBBB (30.4% vs. 29%; p = 0.73) was similar. At 30 days, the rates of new complete heart block (11% vs. 23%; p ≤ 0.001) and PPM implantation (10% vs. 21%, p ≤ 0.001) remained significantly lower in the cusp-overlap group, while the rate of new LBBB (35% vs. 30%; p = 0.73) was similar.
CONCLUSION: Cusp-overlap approach offers several potential technical advantages compared to standard three-cusp view, and may result in lower PPM rates in TAVR with SE Evolut valve.