1. |
- Généreux, Philippe, et al.
(author)
-
Evolution and Prognostic Impact of Cardiac Damage After Aortic Valve Replacement.
- 2022
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - 1558-3597.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extra-valvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown.To describe evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes.Patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1-year (Stage 0, no damage; Stage 1, left ventricular damage; Stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; Stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; Stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes.Among 1974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were Stage 0, 287 (14.5%) Stage 1, 1014 (51.4%) Stage 2, 412 (20.9%) Stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) Stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1-year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved in ∼15%, remained unchanged in ∼60%, and worsened in ∼25% of patients at 1-year. One-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjHR for improvement=0.49; no change=1.0; worsening=1.95; p=0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjHR for improvement=0.60; no change=1.0; worsening=2.25; p<0.001) at 2 years.In patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1-year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of AS and intervention prior to development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis.
|
|
2. |
- Hansson, Nicolaj C., et al.
(author)
-
The impact of calcium volume and distribution in aortic root injury related to balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement
- 2015
-
In: JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 1934-5925. ; 9:5, s. 382-392
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: A detailed assessment of calcium within the aortic root may provide important additional information regarding the risk of aortic root injury during transcatheter heart valve replacement (TAVR). Objective: We sought to delineate the effect of calcium volume and distribution on aortic root injury during TAVR. Methods: Thirty-three patients experiencing aortic root injury during TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve were compared with a control group of 153 consecutive TAVR patients without aortic root injury (as assessed by post-TAVR multidetector CT). Using commercial software to analyze contrast-enhanced pre-TAVR CT scans, caltium volume was determined in 3 regions: (1) the overall left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), extending 10 mm down from the aortic annulus plane; (2) the upper LVOT, extending 2 mm down from the annulus plane; and (3) the aortic valve region. Results: Calcium volumes in the upper LVOT (median, 29 vs 0 mm(3); P less than .0001) and overall LVOT (median, 74 vs 3 mm(3); P = .0001) were higher in patients who experienced aortic root injury compared with the control group. Calcium in the aortic valve region did not differ between groups. Upper LVOT calcium volume was more predictive of aortic root injury than overall LVOT calcium volume (area under receiver operating curve [AUG]; 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.86 vs AUC, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.82; P = .010). Upper LVOT calcium below the noncoronary cusp was significantly more predictive of aortic root injury compared to calcium underneath the right coronary cusp or the left coronary cusp (AUC, 0.81 vs 0.68 vs 0.64). Prosthesis oversizing greater than20% (likelihood ratio test, P = .028) and redilatation (likelihood ratio test, P = .015) improved prediction of aortic root injury by upper LVOT calcium volume. Conclusion: Calcification of the LVOT, especially in the upper LVOT, located below the noncoronary cusp and extending from the annular region, is predictive of aortic root injury during TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve. (C) 2015 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. All rights reserved.
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Rizik, David G., et al.
(author)
-
Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR : A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2022
-
In: JAMA Network Open. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2574-3805. ; 5:10, s. 1-11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up. Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.
|
|