Julia Seeger1, Renu Virmani2, Maria Romero2, Birgid Gonska1, Wolfgang Rottbauer1, Jochen Wöhrle3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine II, Cardiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 2. CV Path Institute, Gaithersburg, Maryland. 3. Department of Internal Medicine II, Cardiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: jochen.woehrle@uniklinik-ulm.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the debris captured by the Claret Sentinel cerebral embolic dual-filter protection device during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with different valve types. BACKGROUND: Risk for embolization of debris during TAVR may vary by TAVR device. METHODS: The filters of 100 consecutive patients were collected and captured debris was analyzed by histopathology and histomorphometry. Three valve types were implanted: the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN 3 (n = 42), the self-expandable Medtronic Evolut R (n = 35), and the mechanically implantable Boston Scientific Lotus (n = 23). RESULTS: Among the 3 groups there was no difference in baseline data, including Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for mortality, calcification, or pre-dilation. The type of captured debris did not differ among the 3 valve types in the proximal or distal filter. With the balloon-expandable valve, there were significantly more patients with large debris measuring ≥1,000 μm. The number of particles in the proximal filter was significantly lower with the Lotus (89.8 ± 106.3) compared with the Evolut R (187.3 ± 176.9) and Edwards SAPIEN 3 (172.3 ± 133.5) valves (p = 0.035). Total tissue area in the proximal filter was significantly smaller for the Lotus compared with the other 2 valve types (7.1 ± 6.3, 20.1 ± 19.0, and 21.3 ± 15.1 mm2; p = 0.0014). In contrast, for the distal filter, there were no differences with respect to valve type for total tissue area, particle size, and number of particles. CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference was observed in the size and number of captured tissue particles with the double-filter embolic protection device among different valve types in patients undergoing TAVR. The largest particles were observed in patients treated with a balloon-expandable valve.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the debris captured by the Claret Sentinel cerebral embolic dual-filter protection device during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with different valve types. BACKGROUND: Risk for embolization of debris during TAVR may vary by TAVR device. METHODS: The filters of 100 consecutive patients were collected and captured debris was analyzed by histopathology and histomorphometry. Three valve types were implanted: the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN 3 (n = 42), the self-expandable Medtronic Evolut R (n = 35), and the mechanically implantable Boston Scientific Lotus (n = 23). RESULTS: Among the 3 groups there was no difference in baseline data, including Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for mortality, calcification, or pre-dilation. The type of captured debris did not differ among the 3 valve types in the proximal or distal filter. With the balloon-expandable valve, there were significantly more patients with large debris measuring ≥1,000 μm. The number of particles in the proximal filter was significantly lower with the Lotus (89.8 ± 106.3) compared with the Evolut R (187.3 ± 176.9) and Edwards SAPIEN 3 (172.3 ± 133.5) valves (p = 0.035). Total tissue area in the proximal filter was significantly smaller for the Lotus compared with the other 2 valve types (7.1 ± 6.3, 20.1 ± 19.0, and 21.3 ± 15.1 mm2; p = 0.0014). In contrast, for the distal filter, there were no differences with respect to valve type for total tissue area, particle size, and number of particles. CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference was observed in the size and number of captured tissue particles with the double-filter embolic protection device among different valve types in patients undergoing TAVR. The largest particles were observed in patients treated with a balloon-expandable valve.
Authors: Tian-Yuan Xiong; Walid Ben Ali; Yuan Feng; Kentaro Hayashida; Hasan Jilaihawi; Azeem Latib; Michael Kang-Yin Lee; Martin B Leon; Raj R Makkar; Thomas Modine; Christoph Naber; Yong Peng; Nicolo Piazza; Michael J Reardon; Simon Redwood; Ashok Seth; Lars Sondergaard; Edgar Tay; Didier Tchetche; Wei-Hsian Yin; Mao Chen; Bernard Prendergast; Darren Mylotte Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Paul Toon Lim Chiam; Nien Shen Chan; Yean Teng Lim; Choon Pin Lim; Dinesh Nair; Tai Tian Lim; Chao Yang Soon; Brian Chung Hoe Khoo; Jimmy Lim; Kok Soon Tan; Leslie Lam; Peter Yan; Yau Wei Ooi; Mei Sian Chong Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.331
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
Authors: Carolina Donà; Matthias Koschutnik; Christian Nitsche; Max-Paul Winter; Veronika Seidl; Jolanta Siller-Matula; Markus Mach; Martin Andreas; Philipp Bartko; Andreas Anselm Kammerlander; Georg Goliasch; Irene Lang; Christian Hengstenberg; Julia Mascherbauer Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-21
Authors: Tian-Yuan Xiong; Chun-Yan Luo; He-Han Tang; Lars Søndergaard; Bernard Prendergast; Su Lui; Mao Chen Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 5.501