In Vivo Computed Tomography Sizing for Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Evolut Valves: Impact on Sizing, Feasibility, and Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch.

computed tomography feasibility risk plane sequestration sinus

Journal

Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1941-7632
Titre abrégé: Circ Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499602

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline: 27 6 2024
pubmed: 27 6 2024
entrez: 27 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

SAPIEN3 (S3) is a ubiquitous redo-transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement alternative for degenerated Evolut valves, but S3 sizing for S3-in-Evolut remains unclear. We sought to compare the impact of in vivo computed tomography (CT)-sizing on redo-TAV feasibility for S3-in-Evolut with traditional bench-sizing. CT scans of 290 patients treated using Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ between July 2015 and December 2021 were analyzed. S3-in-Evolut was simulated using S3 outflow/neoskirt plane (NSP) at node-6, -5, and -4. CT-sizing for S3 was determined by averaging 4 areas of the Evolut stent frame at NSP level and 3 nodes below. Redo-TAV was deemed feasible if the NSP was below the coronaries, or the narrowest valve (virtual S3)-to-aorta distance was >4 mm. Risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch was estimated using predicted indexed-effective orifice area. Compared with bench-sizing, CT-sizing yielded smaller S3 size in 82% at node-6, 81% at node-5, and 84% at node-4. Factors associated with CT-sizing less than bench-sizing were larger index Evolut size, underexpansion of index Evolut, and shallower implant depth (all CT-sizing for S3-in-Evolut is associated with higher feasibility of redo-TAV compared with bench-sizing, potentially reducing the risk of excessive oversizing and S3 underexpansion. Further validation using real-world clinical data is necessary.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND UNASSIGNED
SAPIEN3 (S3) is a ubiquitous redo-transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement alternative for degenerated Evolut valves, but S3 sizing for S3-in-Evolut remains unclear. We sought to compare the impact of in vivo computed tomography (CT)-sizing on redo-TAV feasibility for S3-in-Evolut with traditional bench-sizing.
METHODS UNASSIGNED
CT scans of 290 patients treated using Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ between July 2015 and December 2021 were analyzed. S3-in-Evolut was simulated using S3 outflow/neoskirt plane (NSP) at node-6, -5, and -4. CT-sizing for S3 was determined by averaging 4 areas of the Evolut stent frame at NSP level and 3 nodes below. Redo-TAV was deemed feasible if the NSP was below the coronaries, or the narrowest valve (virtual S3)-to-aorta distance was >4 mm. Risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch was estimated using predicted indexed-effective orifice area.
RESULTS UNASSIGNED
Compared with bench-sizing, CT-sizing yielded smaller S3 size in 82% at node-6, 81% at node-5, and 84% at node-4. Factors associated with CT-sizing less than bench-sizing were larger index Evolut size, underexpansion of index Evolut, and shallower implant depth (all
CONCLUSIONS UNASSIGNED
CT-sizing for S3-in-Evolut is associated with higher feasibility of redo-TAV compared with bench-sizing, potentially reducing the risk of excessive oversizing and S3 underexpansion. Further validation using real-world clinical data is necessary.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38934113
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013903
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e013903

Auteurs

Atsushi Okada (A)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Miho Fukui (M)

Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center and Core Lab, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (M.F., J.L.C.).

Syed Zaid (S)

Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (S.Z.).

Kiahltone R Thao (KR)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Evan Walser-Kuntz (E)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Larissa I Stanberry (LI)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Marcus R Burns (MR)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Hideki Koike (H)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Cheng Wang (C)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

Asa Phichaphop (A)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).

John R Lesser (JR)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).
Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, MN (J.R.L., J.L.C., P.S., V.N.B.).

João L Cavalcante (JL)

Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center and Core Lab, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (M.F., J.L.C.).
Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, MN (J.R.L., J.L.C., P.S., V.N.B.).

Paul Sorajja (P)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).
Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, MN (J.R.L., J.L.C., P.S., V.N.B.).

Vinayak N Bapat (VN)

Valve Science Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN. (A.O., K.R.T., E.W.-K., L.I.S., M.R.B., H.K., C.W., A.P., J.R.L., P.S., V.N.B.).
Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, MN (J.R.L., J.L.C., P.S., V.N.B.).

Classifications MeSH