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

Background: 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: 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: 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 P <0.05). CT-sizing increased redo-TAV feasibility by +8% at node-6, +10% at node-5, and +4% at node-4. Redo-TAV feasibility increased with annulus size, sinotubular junction dimensions, coronary heights, index Evolut size, deeper Evolut implant depth, and lower NSP levels (all P <0.05). CT-sizing had a slightly higher estimated risk of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (9% at node-6, 7% at node-5, and 6% at node-4), which could be mitigated by changing the NSP.
Conclusions: 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.
Competing Interests: Dr Bapat has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Cavalcante has received consulting fees from 4C, Abbott Structural, Anteris, AriaCV, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, HighLife, Medtronic, VDyne, WL Gore, Xylocor; has received research grant support from Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation; Dr Sorajja has received consulting fees from 4C Medical, Abbott Structural, Adona, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Evolution Medical, Foldax, GE Medical, Laza, Medtronic, Phillips, WL Gore, vDyne, xDot; has received institutional research grant support from Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Boston Scientific. The other authors report no conflicts.