CT-derived simulations to predict outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with an ACURATE Neo2 valve the PRECISE-TAVI cohort B trial.
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:
28 Aug 2024
28 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
28
06
2024
received:
08
02
2024
accepted:
11
08
2024
medline:
28
8
2024
pubmed:
28
8
2024
entrez:
28
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Paravalvular leakage (PVL) and conduction disorders that require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remain clinically relevant challenges after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Computed tomography-based simulations may predict the risk of significant PVL and PPI. To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of preprocedural computer simulation with FEops HEARTguide™ to predict >trace PVL and PPI after TAVI with the self-expanding supra-annular ACURATE Neo2 transcatheter heart valve. Prospective multicenter observational study that included consecutive patients undergoing TAVI with an ACURATE Neo2 valve. Computer simulations were performed before the TAVI procedure as part of the preprocedural planning. Follow-up period for PPI and PVL was 30 days. Sixty-five patients were included (median age 81 years (25th-75th percentile 77-84.5)). New left bundle branch block occurred in five patients (7.7%) and PPI in two patients (3%). Contact pressure index (CPI) was similar for patients with vs without new conduction disorders. Patients with PPI had numerically higher CPI than those without PPI (median CPI 20.0% (25th-75th percentile 15.0-25.0) vs. 13.0% (25th-75th percentile 5.5-18), p = 0.27). More than trace PVL occurred in 30%. Median PVL was significantly lower in patients with none-trace PVL (3.2 mL/s [25th-75th percentile 2.2-5.0]), compared to mild PVL (5.2 mL/s [25th-75th percentile 3.2-10.3]) and moderate PVL (12.6 mL/s [25th-75th percentile 3.9-21.3])(p = 0.036). A simulated PVL-cutoff of 9.65 mL/s identified patients with >trace PVL (AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.85), sensitivity 42%, specificity 95%). In our study FEops HEARTguide™ simulations identified patients at risk for >trace PVL with ACURATE Neo2 TAVI but not for PPI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Paravalvular leakage (PVL) and conduction disorders that require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remain clinically relevant challenges after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Computed tomography-based simulations may predict the risk of significant PVL and PPI.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of preprocedural computer simulation with FEops HEARTguide™ to predict >trace PVL and PPI after TAVI with the self-expanding supra-annular ACURATE Neo2 transcatheter heart valve.
METHODS
METHODS
Prospective multicenter observational study that included consecutive patients undergoing TAVI with an ACURATE Neo2 valve. Computer simulations were performed before the TAVI procedure as part of the preprocedural planning. Follow-up period for PPI and PVL was 30 days.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty-five patients were included (median age 81 years (25th-75th percentile 77-84.5)). New left bundle branch block occurred in five patients (7.7%) and PPI in two patients (3%). Contact pressure index (CPI) was similar for patients with vs without new conduction disorders. Patients with PPI had numerically higher CPI than those without PPI (median CPI 20.0% (25th-75th percentile 15.0-25.0) vs. 13.0% (25th-75th percentile 5.5-18), p = 0.27). More than trace PVL occurred in 30%. Median PVL was significantly lower in patients with none-trace PVL (3.2 mL/s [25th-75th percentile 2.2-5.0]), compared to mild PVL (5.2 mL/s [25th-75th percentile 3.2-10.3]) and moderate PVL (12.6 mL/s [25th-75th percentile 3.9-21.3])(p = 0.036). A simulated PVL-cutoff of 9.65 mL/s identified patients with >trace PVL (AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.85), sensitivity 42%, specificity 95%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In our study FEops HEARTguide™ simulations identified patients at risk for >trace PVL with ACURATE Neo2 TAVI but not for PPI.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : PRECISE-TAVI cohort B is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
ID : 945698
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Beyersdorf F, Vahanian A, Milojevic M, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;60(4):727‐800.
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 Imag. 2019;12(1):1‐24.
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(1):73 e1‐ e19.
Lanz J, Kim WK, Walther T, et al. Safety and efficacy of a self‐expanding versus a balloon‐expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non‐inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1619‐1628.
Tamburino C, Bleiziffer S, Thiele H, et al. Comparison of self‐expanding bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: SCOPE 2 randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2020;142(25):2431‐2442.
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. Circulation Cardiovasc Interven. 2018;11(2):e005344.
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 Interven. 2016;9(5):508‐512.
Dowling C, Bavo AM, El Faquir N, et al. Patient‐specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve morphology. Circulation Cardiovasc Imag. 2019;12(10):e009178.
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(9):1044‐1052.
Hokken TW, Wienemann H, Dargan J, et al. Clinical value of CT‐derived simulations of transcatheter‐aortic‐valve‐implantation in challenging anatomies the PRECISE‐TAVI trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;102(6):1140‐1148.
Ruck A, Kim WK, Abdel‐Wahab M, et al. The early neo2 registry: transcatheter aortic valve implantation with ACURATE neo2 in a European population. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(15):e029464.
Pellegrini C, Rheude T, Renker M, et al. ACURATE neo2 versus SAPIEN 3 ultra for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2023;18(12):987‐995.
Baggio S, Pagnesi M, Kim WK, et al. Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ devices. EuroIntervention. 2023;18(12):977‐986.
Scotti A, Pagnesi M, Kim WK, et al. Haemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self‐expanding ACURATE neo2. EuroIntervention. 2022;18(10):804‐811.
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 Imag. 2017;18(6):648‐653.
Okuno T, Tomii D, Heg D, et al. Five‐year outcomes of mild paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2022;18(1):33‐42.