BACKGROUND: Sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) remains controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The aim of the BAVARD (Bicuspid Aortic Valve Anatomy and Relationship With Devices) retrospective registry is to capture the sizing ratios used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in BAV and analyze the second-generation prostheses geometry postimplantation. About 101 patients with BAV along with available pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation multidetector computed tomography were compared with 88 tricuspid aortic valves (TAV) patients. Preprocedural multidetector computed tomography diagnosed type 0 and type 1 BAV in, respectively, 12.9% and 86.1 % of BAV. At baseline, the ellipticity index was similar between BAV and TAV patients: 1.2±0.1 versus 1.2±0.1, P=0.09. The mean annular oversizing was, respectively, 1.14±0.04 and 1.04±0.04, P<0.001, in TAV and BAV patients. The mean prosthesis intercommissural distance, ratio was 1.03±0.1. The mean diameter of the prostheses at the annulus matched the mean perimeter-derived diameter of the aortic annulus at baseline with TAV (23.3±2.2 versus 23.6±1.9, P=0.4) and was smaller with BAV (24±2.8 versus 26.8±3.1, P<0.01), confirming 11% underexpansion in BAV. Finally, in situ, prosthesis diameter and ellipticity followed the same pattern, with stable values from the distal edge to 12 mm above, in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Second-generation prostheses similarly reshape the aortic annulus in TAV and BAV. Prostheses keep consistent diameters from distal edge to 12 mm in TAV and BAV. Prosthesis underexpansion is constantly observed in BAV. Annular-based sizing is accurate in BAV with minimal oversizing. The intercommissural distance, 4 mm above the annulus, could be integrated in gray zones. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03495050.
BACKGROUND: Sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) remains controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The aim of the BAVARD (Bicuspid Aortic Valve Anatomy and Relationship With Devices) retrospective registry is to capture the sizing ratios used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in BAV and analyze the second-generation prostheses geometry postimplantation. About 101 patients with BAV along with available pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation multidetector computed tomography were compared with 88 tricuspid aortic valves (TAV) patients. Preprocedural multidetector computed tomography diagnosed type 0 and type 1 BAV in, respectively, 12.9% and 86.1 % of BAV. At baseline, the ellipticity index was similar between BAV and TAVpatients: 1.2±0.1 versus 1.2±0.1, P=0.09. The mean annular oversizing was, respectively, 1.14±0.04 and 1.04±0.04, P<0.001, in TAV and BAV patients. The mean prosthesis intercommissural distance, ratio was 1.03±0.1. The mean diameter of the prostheses at the annulus matched the mean perimeter-derived diameter of the aortic annulus at baseline with TAV (23.3±2.2 versus 23.6±1.9, P=0.4) and was smaller with BAV (24±2.8 versus 26.8±3.1, P<0.01), confirming 11% underexpansion in BAV. Finally, in situ, prosthesis diameter and ellipticity followed the same pattern, with stable values from the distal edge to 12 mm above, in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Second-generation prostheses similarly reshape the aortic annulus in TAV and BAV. Prostheses keep consistent diameters from distal edge to 12 mm in TAV and BAV. Prosthesis underexpansion is constantly observed in BAV. Annular-based sizing is accurate in BAV with minimal oversizing. The intercommissural distance, 4 mm above the annulus, could be integrated in gray zones. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03495050.
Authors: Bo Fu; Qingliang Chen; Feng Zhao; Zhigang Guo; Nan Jiang; Xu Wang; Wei Wang; Jiange Han; Li Yang; Yanbo Zhu; Yanhe Ma Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-07
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: Ole de Backer; Tobias Zeus; Verena Veulemans; Philippe Nuyens; Shouheng Goh; Oliver Maier; Stephan Binnebößel; Jacqueline Heermann; Christian Jung; Ralf Westenfeld; Malte Kelm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ryan T Helbock; Salwa B Anam; Brandon J Kovarovic; Marvin J Slepian; Ashraf Hamdan; Rami Haj-Ali; Danny Bluestein Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.219
Authors: Dmitry Levin; G Burkhard Mackensen; Mark Reisman; James M McCabe; Danny Dvir; Beth Ripley Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Piotr A Chodór; Krzysztof Wilczek; Karolina Chodór-Rozwadowska; Roman Przybylski; Jan Głowacki; Tomasz Niklewski; Łukasz Włoch; Mariusz Gąsior; Marian Zembala; Zbigniew Kalarus Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 1.426