BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of an elliptic annulus on acute device success rates following self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. balloon-expandable (BE) TAVR.Methods and Results: Outcomes were assessed using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Aortic annulus ratio (AAR) was measured as short axis diameter/long axis diameter. Mean AAR was 0.81±0.06. Patients were therefore divided into 2 groups: AAR <0.82 and AAR ≥0.82. For circular annuli (AAR ≥0.82; 363 patients), high device success rates were achieved in both valve groups (SE valve, 90.5% vs. BE valve, 95.0%, P=0.14). Conversely, for AAR <0.82 (374 patients), SE valves had lower device success rates than BE valves (82.5% vs. 95.3%, P=0.002). For elliptic annuli, SE-TAVR was an independent predictor of unsuccessful device implantation (OR, 6.34, P<0.001). Nonetheless, increased oversizing of SE valves for elliptic annuli was associated with an exponential rise in device success (threshold ≥17.5%; area under the curve, 0.83) but not for BE-TAVR. Furthermore, optimally oversized SE valves and BE valves had a similarly high device success for elliptic annuli (SE valve, 96.2% vs. BE valve, 95.3%). CONCLUSIONS: For circular annuli, similarly high device success was achieved for the 2 valve types. Conversely, for elliptic annuli, SE valves had a lower device success than BE valves. Device success following optimal oversizing of SE valves, however, was similar to that for BE valves.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of an elliptic annulus on acute device success rates following self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. balloon-expandable (BE) TAVR.Methods and Results: Outcomes were assessed using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Aortic annulus ratio (AAR) was measured as short axis diameter/long axis diameter. Mean AAR was 0.81±0.06. Patients were therefore divided into 2 groups: AAR <0.82 and AAR ≥0.82. For circular annuli (AAR ≥0.82; 363 patients), high device success rates were achieved in both valve groups (SE valve, 90.5% vs. BE valve, 95.0%, P=0.14). Conversely, for AAR <0.82 (374 patients), SE valves had lower device success rates than BE valves (82.5% vs. 95.3%, P=0.002). For elliptic annuli, SE-TAVR was an independent predictor of unsuccessful device implantation (OR, 6.34, P<0.001). Nonetheless, increased oversizing of SE valves for elliptic annuli was associated with an exponential rise in device success (threshold ≥17.5%; area under the curve, 0.83) but not for BE-TAVR. Furthermore, optimally oversized SE valves and BE valves had a similarly high device success for elliptic annuli (SE valve, 96.2% vs. BE valve, 95.3%). CONCLUSIONS: For circular annuli, similarly high device success was achieved for the 2 valve types. Conversely, for elliptic annuli, SE valves had a lower device success than BE valves. Device success following optimal oversizing of SE valves, however, was similar to that for BE valves.
Authors: Markus Mach; Philipp Szalkiewicz; Thomas Poschner; Waseem Hasan; Martin Andreas; Bernhard Winkler; Ena Hasimbegovic; Theresia Steinkellner; Andreas Strouhal; Christopher Adlbrecht; Georg Delle-Karth; Martin Grabenwöger Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.686