Contents
Download PDF
261119 Views
18309 Downloads
Share this article
Research Article | Volume 26 Issue 4 (, 2017) | Pages 405 - 412
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in High-Risk/Inoperable Patients: Repositionable versus Non-Repositionable Self-Expanding Valve
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
1
Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
2
Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. Electronic correspondence: dagmar.soetemann@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Under a Creative Commons license
PMID : -29302939
Published
July 10, 2017
Abstract

Background and aim of the study: Although next-generation cardiac prostheses have shown favorable results in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), these have mostly been documented in intermediate-risk patients. Whether this could be translated to high-risk patients is not known. Hence, the safety and clinical performance of the new, repositionable CoreValve Evolut R-System (ERS) was evaluated by comparison with a non-repositionable CoreValve-System (CVS), in 96 high-risk/inoperable (HRI) patients.

Methods: The primary safety end points were mortality and stroke, defined by VARC-2 criteria, at 30 days. Clinical performance end points were described by VARC-2 criteria, focusing on: (i) higher-grade atrioventricular conduction blocks with concomitant permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation; (ii) vascular complications (VCs); and (iii) aortic regurgitation (AR). The ERS and CVS patients underwent TAVI in equal proportions.

Results: In this study, 63% of patients in the CVS group and 82% in the ERS group were defined as HRI. One in-hospital death was documented after 30 days. With regards to the HRI cohort, no difference in rates of PM use were noted (ERS 20% versus CVS 20%; p >0.9999). ERS patients were characterized by a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (46% versus 21%; p <0.05), but fewer VCs (13% versus 41%; p <0.01). Both cohorts showed low rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular AR (ERS 6% versus CVS 5%; p = 0.8639). However, ERS seemed to offer a favorable hemodynamic performance, with a significantly improved AR index (26.3 versus 22.3; p <0.05). TAVI with the ERS was associated with a higher stroke rate (3% versus 0%; p = 0.1232) after necessary postdilatation processes.

Conclusions: In comparison to last-generation CVS, the repositionable ERS is safe and effective in HRI patients. Similar rates of PM use were noted for each group. together with a favorable hemodynamic performance and fewer vascular complications.

 

 

 

How to cite: Veulemans, V., Sötemann, D. B., Kleinebrecht, L., Keymel, S., Jung, C., Zeus, T., Kelm, M., & Westenfeld, R. (2017). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in High-Risk/Inoperable Patients: Repositionable versus Non-Repositionable Self-Expanding Valve. The Journal of heart valve disease26(4), 405–412.

 
Recommended Articles
Research Article
Mechanical aortic valve replacement: long-term outcomes in children
...
Download PDF
Research Article
Emerging Biomarkers for Early Detection of Heart Valve Disease
Download PDF
Research Article
Clinical Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Procedures for Failed Bioprosthetic Valves
Download PDF
Research Article
Genetic Predisposition and Its Role in Congenital Heart Valve Malformations
Download PDF
Chat on WhatsApp
Copyright © The Journal Of Heart Valve Disease. All Rights Reserved.