Back to Search
Start Over
Quantitative Angiographic Assessment of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Implantation of the Venus A-valve: Comparison with Other Self-Expanding Valves and Impact of a Learning Curve in a Single Chinese Center.
- Source :
-
Global heart [Glob Heart] 2021 Aug 04; Vol. 16 (1), pp. 54. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Aug 04 (Print Publication: 2021). - Publication Year :
- 2021
-
Abstract
- Objectives: We aimed to compare the quantitative angiographic aortic regurgitation (AR) into the left ventricular out flow tract (LVOT-AR) of five different types of transcatheter self-expanding valves and to investigate the impact of the learning curve on post-TAVR AR.<br />Background: Quantitative video densitometric aortography is an objective, accurate, and reproducible tool for assessment of AR following TAVR.<br />Methods and Results: This retrospective academic core-lab analysis, analyzed 1150 consecutive cine aortograms performed immediately post-TAVR. Quantitative angiographic AR of post-procedural aortography in 181 consecutive patients, who underwent TAVR with the Venus A-valve in a single Chinese center, were compared to the results of Evolut Pro, Evolut R, CoreValve, (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) and Acurate Neo (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts, US) transcatheter heart valves (THVs), from a previously published pooled database. Among the 181 aortograms of patients treated with the Venus A-Valve, 113 (62.4%) were analyzable for quantitative assessment of AR. The mean LVOT-AR was 8.9% ± 10.0% with 14.2% of patients having moderate or severe AR in the Venus A-valve group. No significant difference in mean LVOT-AR was observed between Evolut Pro, Evolut R, Acurate Neo, and Venus A-valve. The incidence of LVOT-AR >17%, which correlates with echocardiographic derived ≥ moderate AR, with the Evolut Pro was lower than with the Venus A-valve (5.3% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.034), but was not different from the Evolut R (5.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.612), or the Acurate Neo (5.3% vs. 11.3% p = 0.16) systems. A landmark analysis after recruitment of the first half of patients treated with the Venus A valve (N = 56), showed a significantly lower mean LVOT-AR in the second half of the series (11.3% ± 11.9% vs. 6.5% ± 7.1%, p = 0.011). The incidence of LVOT-AR >17% in the latest 57 cases was also numerically lower (7.0% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.857) and compared favorably with the best in class of the self-expanding valves.<br />Conclusion: The Venus A-valve has comparable mean LVOT-AR to other self-expanding valves but has a higher rate of moderate or severe AR than the Evolut Pro THV. However, after completion of a learning phase, results improved and compared favorably with the best in class of the commercially available self-expanding valves. These findings should be confirmed in prospective randomized comparisons of AR between different THVs.<br />Competing Interests: Dr. Serruys reports personal fees from Merillife, Novartis, Philips/Volcano, SMT, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Xeltis outside the submitted work. Dr. Mylotte is a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. JP. Aben is employee of Pie Medical Imaging. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.<br /> (Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s).)
- Subjects :
- Aortic Valve diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve surgery
China epidemiology
Humans
Learning Curve
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis Design
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Aortic Valve Insufficiency diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Insufficiency epidemiology
Aortic Valve Insufficiency etiology
Aortic Valve Stenosis surgery
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement adverse effects
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 2211-8179
- Volume :
- 16
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Global heart
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 34381675
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.1046