Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Small Aortic Annuli: Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
TAVR
mismatch
small
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2022
01 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
revised:
15
03
2022
accepted:
29
03
2022
entrez:
12
4
2022
pubmed:
13
4
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prosthesis−patient mismatch (PPM) is associated with worse outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). PPM has been identified in a significant proportion of TAVR, particularly in patients with small aortic annuli. Our objective was to evaluate the hemodynamic performances of balloon-expandable (BE) (Sapiens 3TM) versus two different self-expandable (SE) (Evolut ProTM, Accurate NeoTM) TAVR devices in patients with small aortic annulus defined by a computed tomography aortic annulus area (AAA) between 330 and 440 mm2. We enrolled 131 consecutive patients corresponding to 76 Sapiens 3 23 mm (58.0%), 26 Evolut Pro (19.9%) and 29 Accurate Neo (22.1%). Mean age was 82.5 ± 7.06 years, 22.9% of patients were male and mean Euroscore was 4.0%. Mean AAA was 374 ± 27 mm2 for Sapiens 3, 383 ± 29 mm2 for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 389 ± 25 mm2 for Accurate Neo. BE devices were associated with significantly higher rates of PPM (39.5%) as compared to SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 6.9% for Accurate Neo) (p < 0.0001). Paravalvular leaks ≥ 2/4 were more often observed in SE devices (15.4% for Corevalve Evolut Pro and 17.2% for Accurate Neo) than in BE devices (2.6%) (p = 0.007). In conclusion, SE TAVR devices did achieve better hemodynamic results despite higher rates of paravalvular leaks. Therefore, SE TAVI devices could be considered as first choice in small aortic anatomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35407567
pii: jcm11071959
doi: 10.3390/jcm11071959
pmc: PMC8999619
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 24;76(21):2492-2516
pubmed: 33213729
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Feb 1;19(2):225-233
pubmed: 28329317
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Jan 1;22(1):11-20
pubmed: 32995865
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Jan;12(1):149-162
pubmed: 30621987
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 24;11(24):2507-2518
pubmed: 30503595
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1706-1715
pubmed: 30883053
Eur Heart J. 2021 May 14;42(19):1825-1857
pubmed: 33871579
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jan 6;53(1):39-47
pubmed: 19118723
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 4;72(22):2701-2711
pubmed: 30257798
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jun;33(12):1518-29
pubmed: 22408037
Heart. 2006 Aug;92(8):1022-9
pubmed: 16251232
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jun 14;14(11):1218-1228
pubmed: 34112458
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1695-1705
pubmed: 30883058
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Oct;4(10):1053-62
pubmed: 21999863
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Apr 23;11(8):771-780
pubmed: 29673509
Circulation. 2003 Aug 26;108(8):983-8
pubmed: 12912812
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 May 1;97(6):E875-E886
pubmed: 32926552
Circulation. 2006 Jan 31;113(4):570-6
pubmed: 16401767
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 May 10;14(9):964-976
pubmed: 33958170
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 30;64(13):1323-34
pubmed: 25257633
Eur Heart J. 2020 May 21;41(20):1890-1899
pubmed: 32049283