| Literature DB >> 33882974 |
Yu Zou1, Peng Teng1, Liang Ma2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with mitral regurgitation are denied open-heart surgery due to perceived high risk. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a therapeutic alternative for patients at high surgical risk. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a new self-expanding valved stent for transcatheter mitral valve replacement via apex in an acute animal model.Entities:
Keywords: Mitral regurgitation; Self-expanding valved stent; Transapical; Transcatheter mitral valve replacement
Year: 2021 PMID: 33882974 PMCID: PMC8059321 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-021-01483-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Fig. 1The newly designed self-expanding nitinol valved stent. a Atrial view (A: facing anterior leaflet. P: facing posterior leaflet). b Ventricular view. c Side view. d The valved stent loaded into the delivery system. The clip (c and d) on the ventricular portion holds the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve
Fig. 2a Delivery system advanced into the left atrium. b Atrial brim expansion. c Ventricular body deployed. d The clip released, and the stent separated from the conveyor completely. e The delivery system was withdrawn, and the stent was working. The arrow shows the clip. f Left ventricular angiogram shows no paravalvular regurgitation
Fig. 3Epicardial echocardiography reveals excellent device function with complete leaflet closing (a) and opening (b)
Fig. 4Postmortem evaluation reveals accurate placement. a Left atrial side. b Left ventricular side (AL: anterior leaflet). Three tethering strings (black arrow) are attached to the lower part of the stent. c No signs of LVOT obstruction
Procedure and hemodynamic data
| No. | Weight | HR | BP | CVP | Valve diameter | Valve areaa | Transapical time | Across valve | Across | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pr | Po | Pr | Po | Pr | Po | Native | stent | Native | Stent | |||||
| 1 | 43 | 125 | 130 | 123/92 | 121/70 | 10 | 9 | 23 | 25 | 4.30 | 2.53 | 33 | 3 | 5 |
| 2 | 47 | 120 | 126 | 110/80 | 100/67 | 8 | 7 | 25 | 27 | 4.26 | 2.68 | 20 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 53.6 | 112 | 120 | 103/62 | 106/72 | 9 | 7 | 25.5 | 27 | 5.00 | 3.20 | 18 | 2 | 4 |
| 4 | 50 | 123 | 112 | 98/53 | 101/58 | 11 | 8 | 25.1 | 27 | 4.23 | 2.83 | 11 | 1 | 4 |
| 5 | 45.3 | 130 | 121 | 107/70 | N | 8 | N | 23.2 | 25 | 4.12 | N | failed | n.a. | n.a. |
| 6 | 43.7 | 110 | 113 | 117/73 | 120/70 | 10 | 8 | 23.5 | 25 | 4.31 | 2.38 | 10 | 1 | 2 |
| 7 | 46 | 126 | 111 | 112/68 | 118/72 | 12 | 10 | 24 | 25 | 4.50 | 2.63 | 13 | 2 | 3 |
| 8 | 43 | 112 | 130 | 120/81 | 118/73 | 7 | 9 | 23.2 | 25 | 4.18 | 2.67 | 15 | 3 | 2 |
| Mean | 46.45 | 119 | 120 | 111/72 | 112/69 | 9.38 | 8.29 | 24.06 | 25.75 | 4.36 | 2.70 | 17.14 | 2.00 | 3.28 |
| SD | 3.72 | 7.54 | 7.84 | 8.55/12.11 | 9.29/5.18 | 1.69 | 1.11 | 1.00 | 1.04 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 7.86 | 0.82 | 1.11 |
Across LVOT Gradient across LVOT, Across valve Gradient across valve, BP Blood pressure, CVP Central venous pressure, HR Heart rate, n.a. Not available (due to failed implantation), post after implantation, pre before implantation, SD Standard deviation
aDifferences between native and stent were statistically significant
Mitral regurgitation
| No. | CL | PVL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mild | Mild |
| 2 | None | Mild |
| 3 | trace | mild |
| 4 | Mild | Trace |
| 5 | None | Moderate to Severe |
| 6 | Mild | Mild |
| 7 | Trace | mild |
| 8 | Trace | Mild |
CL Central leak, PVL Perivalvular leak