Clinical value of CT-derived simulations of transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation in challenging anatomies the PRECISE-TAVI trial.
Humans
Male
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Computer Simulation
Prospective Studies
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Treatment Outcome
Aortic Valve
/ diagnostic imaging
Multidetector Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prosthesis Design
computer simulations
conduction abnormalities
paravalvular leakage
transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
revised:
28
07
2023
received:
30
03
2023
accepted:
19
08
2023
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
5
9
2023
entrez:
5
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Preprocedural computed tomography planning improves procedural safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, contemporary imaging modalities do not account for device-host interactions. This study evaluates the value of preprocedural computer simulation with FEops HEARTguide This prospective multicenter observational study included patients with a challenging anatomy defined as bicuspid aortic valve, small annulus or severely calcified aortic valve. We compared the heart team's transcatheter heart valve (THV) planning decision based on (1) conventional multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and (2) MSCT imaging with FEops HEARTguide A total of 77 patients were included (median age 79.9 years (IQR 74.2-83.8), 42% male). In 35% of the patients, preprocedural planning changed after FEops HEARTguide FEops HEARTguide
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Preprocedural computed tomography planning improves procedural safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, contemporary imaging modalities do not account for device-host interactions.
AIMS
This study evaluates the value of preprocedural computer simulation with FEops HEARTguide
METHODS
This prospective multicenter observational study included patients with a challenging anatomy defined as bicuspid aortic valve, small annulus or severely calcified aortic valve. We compared the heart team's transcatheter heart valve (THV) planning decision based on (1) conventional multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and (2) MSCT imaging with FEops HEARTguide
RESULTS
A total of 77 patients were included (median age 79.9 years (IQR 74.2-83.8), 42% male). In 35% of the patients, preprocedural planning changed after FEops HEARTguide
CONCLUSION
FEops HEARTguide
Types de publication
Observational Study
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1140-1148Subventions
Organisme : European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program
ID : 945698
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Blanke P, Weir-McCall JR, Achenbach S, et al. Computed tomography imaging in the context of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:1-24. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.003
Yucel-Finn A, Nicol E, Leipsic JA, Weir-McCall JR. CT in planning transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures and risk assessment. Clin Radiol. 2021;76:73.e1-73.e19. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2019.11.015
Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790-1798. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1400590
Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321-1331. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1700456
Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1706-1715. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1816885
Di Martino LFM, Soliman OII, Van Gils L, et al. Relation between calcium burden, echocardiographic stent frame eccentricity and paravalvular leakage after corevalve transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:648-653. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jex009
Fujita B, Kütting M, Seiffert M, et al. Calcium distribution patterns of the aortic valve as a risk factor for the need of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1385-1393. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jev343
Yoon SH, Bleiziffer S, De Backer O, et al. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. JACC. 2017;69:2579-2589. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017
Rocatello G, El Faquir N, De Santis G, et al. Patient-specific computer simulation to elucidate the role of contact pressure in the development of new conduction abnormalities after catheter-based implantation of a self-expanding aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e005344. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005344
de Jaegere P, De Santis G, Rodriguez-Olivares R, et al. Patient-specific computer modeling to predict aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:508-512. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2016.01.003
Dowling C, Bavo AM, El Faquir N, et al. Patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve morphology. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:e009178. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009178
Schultz C, Rodriguez-Olivares R, Bosmans J, et al. Patient-specific image-based computer simulation for theprediction of valve morphology and calcium displacement after TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve and the Edwards SAPIEN valve. EuroIntervention. 2016;11:1044-1052. doi:10.4244/EIJV11I9A212
Jilaihawi H, Chen M, Webb J, et al. A bicuspid aortic valve imaging classification for the TAVR era. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:1145-1158. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.12.022
Rogers T, Steinvil A, Gai J, et al. Choice of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve impacts hemodynamics differently according to aortic annular size. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119:900-904. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.044
Hase H, Yoshijima N, Yanagisawa R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut R versus Sapien 3 in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus: the OCEAN-TAVI registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97:E875-E886. doi:10.1002/ccd.29259
Regazzoli D, Chiarito M, Cannata F, et al. Transcatheter self-expandable valve implantation for aortic stenosis in small aortic annuli. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:196-206. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.08.041
Okuno T, Tomii D, Heg D, et al. Five-year outcomes of mild paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2022;18:33-42. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00784
Dowling C, Gooley R, McCormick L, Firoozi S, Brecker SJ. Patient-specific computer simulation to predict long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2022;3:254-261. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2021.11.014
Grube E, Van Mieghem NM, Bleiziffer S, et al. Clinical outcomes with a repositionable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis. JACC. 2017;70:845-853. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.045
Manoharan G, Grube E, Van Mieghem NM, et al. Thirty-day clinical outcomes of the Evolut PRO self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve: the international FORWARD PRO study. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:850-857. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00279
Pascual I, Hernández-Vaquero D, Alperi A, et al. Permanent pacemaker reduction using cusp-overlapping projection in TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:150-161. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2021.10.002
Hokken TW, Muhemin M, Okuno T, et al Impact of membranous septum length on pacemaker need with different transcatheter aortic valve replacement systems: the INTERSECT registry. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2022;6:524-530. doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2022.07.003