4.5 Article

Comparison of outcomes using balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter prostheses according to the extent of aortic valve calcification

期刊

CLINICAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 106, 期 12, 页码 995-1004

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-017-1149-3

关键词

TAVI; MDCT; Aortic stenosis; Aortic valve calcification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Device landing zone (DLZ) calcification is an important determinant of procedural success in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). To evaluate the impact of DLZ calcification on procedural outcome with different types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs). Aortic valve calcium density (AVC(dens)) was determined by non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography in 1232 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. We stratified the outcome data according to the extent of AVC(dens) (mild, moderate, severe) and compared balloon-expandable (BE) with self-expanding (SE) THV. Moreover, THVs were subdivided according to their radial force (BE: high; SEmod: moderate; SElow: low). With BE THV, PVR ae2A degrees (2.1 vs. 7.9%; p < 0.001), post-dilatation (12.3 vs. 36.6%; p < 0.001), malpositioning (8.4 vs. 13.0%; p = 0.01), device embolization (0.4 vs. 2.6%; p = 0.004), and the need for a second valve (1.2 vs. 3.6%; p = 0.01) were less frequent than with SE devices, but mean transaortic gradients at discharge were higher [12.0 mmHg (8.0-15.0) vs. 9.0 mmHg (6.0-11.0); p < 0.001], and aortic root injury was more frequent (2.7 vs. 0.8%; p = 0.01). In cases of severe calcification, differences between BE and SE THV regarding PVR, post-dilatation, and hemodynamics were mostly pronounced, followed by patients with moderate AVC(dens). In cases with low AVC(dens), the best outcomes with respect to PVR, pacemaker implantation, and hemodynamics were achieved with SElow THV. In severe and moderate DLZ calcification, BE devices may have advantages, whereas in mild DLZ calcification, SElow THV showed the most favorable profile.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据