Literature DB >> 29976363

Debris Heterogeneity Across Different Valve Types Captured by a Cerebral Protection System During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Tobias Schmidt1, Martin B Leon2, Roxana Mehran3, Karl-Heinz Kuck4, Maria C Alu2, Ryan E Braumann5, Susheel Kodali2, Samir R Kapadia6, Axel Linke7, Raj Makkar8, Christoph Naber9, Maria E Romero5, Renu Virmani5, Christian Frerker4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated differences between transcatheter heart valve (THV) types and regarding debris captured by a cerebral embolic protection system (Claret Medical Sentinel, Santa Rosa, California).
BACKGROUND: Differences of THV types and cerebral injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not well understood.
METHODS: A total of 246 patients pooled from 2 prospective studies (SENTINEL [Cerebral Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement] trial, N = 100; SENTINEL-H [Histopathology of Embolic Debris Captured During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement] trial, N = 146) were included in the analysis. Histopathologic assessment and histomorphometric analyses of debris were compared with THV types. Analyses were differentiated by particle size (≥150, ≥500, and ≥1,000 μm), particle count, total particle area, and maximum of largest dimension. Only commercially available THVs were included: 16% Evolut R (EvR), 15% Lotus, 59% SAPIEN 3 (S3), and 10% SAPIEN XT (XT).
RESULTS: Particles were captured in 99% of patients. There was a significantly higher amount of debris related to the vascular bed (valve tissue, arterial wall, calcification) in EvR patients compared with S3 patients; 53% of all patients irrespective of valve type had at least 1 particle ≥1 mm. Larger particles (≥500 and ≥1,000 μm) were significantly more frequent in EvR than XT and S3 patients. Lotus patients with particles ≥1,000 μm were significantly more frequent than in S3 patients. Particle count, total particle area, and maximum of largest dimension were significantly higher in both Lotus and EvR patients compared with S3 and XT.
CONCLUSIONS: Debris was captured in 99% of patients, of whom 53% had at least 1 particle of debris >1 mm. The number and size of particles captured during a procedure in which EvR or Lotus THV was used were higher and larger than with a Sapien THV. Regardless, embolic debris, including large particles, is universal across valve types and provides mechanistic support for the potential benefit of using cerebral embolic protection in all TAVR procedures.
Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SENTINEL; TAVR; cerebral protection; histopathologic analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29976363     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  9 in total

Review 1.  Cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: clinical versus silent embolism.

Authors:  Luis Nombela-Franco; German Armijo; Gabriela Tirado-Conte
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 2.  Antithrombotic management after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Fiachra McHugh; Khalid Ahmed; Antoinette Neylon; Faisal Sharif; Darren Mylotte
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Yusuke Kobari; Taku Inohara; Kentaro Hayashida
Journal:  Cardiovasc Interv Ther       Date:  2022-09-17

4.  Comparing Clinical Outcomes on Oncology Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yumeng Song; Yutong Wang; Zuoxiang Wang; Chang Xu; Jingshen Dou; Tingbo Jiang
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-05-31

5.  Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulant and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

Authors:  Tanyanan Tanawuttiwat; Amanda Stebbins; Guillaume Marquis-Gravel; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Andrzej S Kosinski; Alan Cheng
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 6.  TAVR: A Review of Current Practices and Considerations in Low-Risk Patients.

Authors:  Jenna Spears; Yousif Al-Saiegh; David Goldberg; Sina Manthey; Sheldon Goldberg
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Meta-Analysis of Stroke and Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Sascha Macherey; Max Meertens; Victor Mauri; Christian Frerker; Matti Adam; Stephan Baldus; Tobias Schmidt
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 5.501

8.  Use and outcomes of cerebral embolic protection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A US nationwide study.

Authors:  Muhammad Zia Khan; Salman Zahid; Muhammad U Khan; Asim Kichloo; Waqas Ullah; Yasar Sattar; Muhammad Bilal Munir; Atul Singla; Andrew M Goldsweig; Sudarshan Balla
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-06-19       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Characterization of Cerebral Embolic Capture Using the SENTINEL Device During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Low to Intermediate-Risk Patients: The SENTINEL-LIR Study.

Authors:  Rika Kawakami; Hemal Gada; Michael J Rinaldi; Tamim M Nazif; Martin B Leon; Samir Kapadia; Amar Krishnaswamy; Atsushi Sakamoto; Yu Sato; Masayuki Mori; Kenji Kawai; Anne Cornelissen; Ji-Eun Park; Saikat Kumar B Ghosh; Biniyam G Abebe; Maria Romero; Renu Virmani; Aloke V Finn
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 7.514

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.