4.5 Article

In vitro evaluation of implantation depth in valve-in-valve using different transcatheter heart valves

Journal

EUROINTERVENTION
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages 909-917

Publisher

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV12I7A149

Keywords

aortic valve replacement; circulatory in vitro studies; haemodynamics; heart valve prosthesis; valve-in-valve

Funding

  1. St. Paul's Foundation
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  4. Brazilian Federal Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) offers an alternative therapy for high-risk patients. Elevated post-procedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to assess the relationship between depth of implantation and haemodynamics. Methods and results: Commercially available THVs used for ViV were included in the analysis (CoreValve Evolut, SAPIEN XT and the Portico valve). THVs were implanted in small surgical valves (label size 19 mm) to simulate boundary conditions. Custom-mounted pulse duplicators registered relevant haemodynamic parameters. Twenty-eight experiments were performed (13 CVE, 5 SXT and 10 Portico). Ranges of depth of implantation were: CVE:-1.2 mm to 15.7 mm; SXT:-2.2 mm to 7.5 mm; Portico: 1.4 mm to 12.1 mm. Polynomial regression established a relationship between depth of implantation and valvular mean gradients (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.01; Portico: p=0.002), as well as with EOA (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.02; Portico valve: p=0.003). In addition, leaflet coaptation was better in the high implantation experiments for all valves. Conclusions: The current comprehensive bench testing assessment demonstrates the importance of high device position for the attainment of optimal haemodynamics during aortic ViV procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available