Search

Objectives: The objective of this in vitro study was to compare Doppler versus catheter transvalvular pressure gradients (TPG) in third generations balloon-expandable (BE) versus self-expanding (SE) transcatheter heart valves (THV)., Background: TPG is a key parameter to assess and follow valve hemodynamic function following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). It remains uncertain and debated whether, and to which extent, TPGs differ according to the type of THV, that is, BE versus SE and to the method used for TPG measurement, that is, Doppler echocardiography versus cardiac catheterization., Methods: The CoreValve EVOLUT PRO 26 mm and the SAPIEN 3 23 mm THVs were tested in a left heart simulator using a 21 mm aortic annulus under following conditions: heart rate: 70 bpm, mean aortic pressure: 100 mmHg, stroke volume: 30, 70 and 100 ml. Mean TPGs were measured by continuous-wave Doppler and by micro-tip pressure catheters positioned in the left ventricle and at 50 mm downstream to the tip of the THV leaflets., Results: Doppler TPGs (9.5 ± 3.9 mmHg) were on average 40.5 ± 13.9% higher (p < 0.001) than catheter TPGs (6.3 ± 3.4 mmHg). Both Doppler and catheter TPGs were lower (p = 0.003) in the SE versus BE THVs (Doppler: 8.7 ± 3.5 vs. 10.7 ± 4.6; catheter: 5.0 ± 1.7 mmHg vs. 7.1 ± 2.2). The Doppler versus catheter difference in TPG increased with the higher flow conditions. The Doppler versus catheter difference in TPG was similar in BE versus SE THVs (3.6 ± 1.1 vs. 3.7 ± 1.4 mmHg or 42 ± 9 vs. 47 ± 9%; p = 0.58) overall and in each flow conditions., Conclusion: The Doppler TPGs are, on average, 40% higher than the catheter TPGs for both BE and SE THVs. The SE THV had lower Doppler and catheter TPGs compared to the BE THV, at normal and high flow states. The absolute and percent differences between Doppler versus catheter TPGs were similar in BE versus SE THVs., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) may improve transvalvular gradients and transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion during VIV interventions. However, the optimal timing of BVF is unknown. We assessed the impact of timing of BVF (before versus after) for valve-in-valve (VIV) intervention, on hydrodynamic function and THV expansion., Methods and Results: Three THV designs were assessed, a 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3), small ACURATE neo (ACn) and 23 mm Evolut R, deployed into 21 mm Mitroflow bioprosthetic surgical valves. We evaluated each THV in three groups: 1) no BVF, 2) BVF before VIV, and 3) BVF after VIV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed using a pulse duplicator to ISO 5840:2013 standard. Transvalvular gradients were lower when BVF was performed after VIV for the S3 (no BVF 15.5 mmHg, BVF before VIV 8.0 mmHg, BVF after VIV 5.6 mmHg), and the ACn (no BVF 9.8 mmHg, BVF before VIV 8.4 mmHg, BVF after VIV 5.1 mmHg). Transvalvular gradients were similar for the Evolut R, irrespective of performance of BVF or timing of BVF. BVF performed after VIV resulted in better expansion in all three THV designs. The ACn and Evolut R samples all had a mild degree of pinwheeling, and BVF timing did not impact on pinwheeling severity. The S3 samples had severe pinwheeling with no BVF, and significant improvement in pinwheeling when BVF was performed after VIV., Conclusions: BVF performed after VIV was associated with superior THV expansion in all three THV designs tested, with lower residual transvalvular gradients in the S3 and ACn THVs. The Evolut R had similar hydrodynamic performance irrespective of BVF timing. Timing of BVF has potential implications on THV function.