Abstract
Objectives: We sought to compare using serial CMR, the quantity of AR and associated valve hemodynamics, following the first-generation CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and the second-generation Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA).
Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR) following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) confers a worse prognosis and can be accurately quantified using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Second generation valves have been specifically designed to reduce paravalvular AR and improve clinical outcomes.
Methods: Fifty-one patients (79.0 ± 7.7 years, 57% male) were recruited and imaged at three time points: immediately pre- and post-TAVR, and at 6 months.
Results: CMR-derived AR fraction immediately post-TAVR was greater in the CoreValve compared to Lotus group (11.7 ± 8.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.4%, P = 0.001), as was the frequency of ≥moderate AR (9/24 (37.5%) versus 0/27, P < 0.001). However, at 6 months AR fraction had improved significantly in the CoreValve group such that the two valve designs were comparable (6.4 ± 5.0 vs 5.6 ± 5.3%, P = 0.623), with no patient in either group having ≥moderate AR. The residual peak pressure gradient immediately following TAVR was significantly lower with CoreValve compared to Lotus (14.1 ± 5.6 vs 25.4 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.001), but again by 6 months the two valve designs were comparable (16.5 ± 9.4 vs 19.7 ± 10.5 mmHg, P = 0.332). There was no difference in the degree of LV reverse remodeling between the two valves at 6 months.
Conclusion: Immediately post-TAVR, there was significantly less AR but a higher residual peak pressure gradient with the Lotus valve compared to CoreValve. However, at 6 months both devices had comparable valve hemodynamics and LV reverse remodeling.
Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR) following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) confers a worse prognosis and can be accurately quantified using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Second generation valves have been specifically designed to reduce paravalvular AR and improve clinical outcomes.
Methods: Fifty-one patients (79.0 ± 7.7 years, 57% male) were recruited and imaged at three time points: immediately pre- and post-TAVR, and at 6 months.
Results: CMR-derived AR fraction immediately post-TAVR was greater in the CoreValve compared to Lotus group (11.7 ± 8.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.4%, P = 0.001), as was the frequency of ≥moderate AR (9/24 (37.5%) versus 0/27, P < 0.001). However, at 6 months AR fraction had improved significantly in the CoreValve group such that the two valve designs were comparable (6.4 ± 5.0 vs 5.6 ± 5.3%, P = 0.623), with no patient in either group having ≥moderate AR. The residual peak pressure gradient immediately following TAVR was significantly lower with CoreValve compared to Lotus (14.1 ± 5.6 vs 25.4 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.001), but again by 6 months the two valve designs were comparable (16.5 ± 9.4 vs 19.7 ± 10.5 mmHg, P = 0.332). There was no difference in the degree of LV reverse remodeling between the two valves at 6 months.
Conclusion: Immediately post-TAVR, there was significantly less AR but a higher residual peak pressure gradient with the Lotus valve compared to CoreValve. However, at 6 months both devices had comparable valve hemodynamics and LV reverse remodeling.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 391-399 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 25 Apr 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2018 |