Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2017 August;58(4) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2017 August;58(4):598-605

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  CARDIAC SECTION 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2017 August;58(4):598-605

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.17.09391-0

Copyright © 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Determinants of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. An observational study using multi-slice computed tomography-guided sizing

Zouhair RAHHAB 1, Nahid, EL FAQUIR 1, Ramón RODRÍGUEZ-OLIVARES 1, Claire REN 1, Nicolas, van MIEGHEM 1, Marcel L. GELEIJNSE 1, Carl SCHULTZ 2, Ron, van DOMBURG 1, Peter P., de JAEGERE 1

1 Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 2 Department of Cardiology, Royal Perth Hospital Campus, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia



BACKGKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to explore the determinants of aortic regurgitation (AR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) instead of echocardiography-guided sizing.
METHODS: Determinants of AR were assessed in 313 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI with the Medtronic (MCS, N.=259) or Edwards Sapien or XT (ESV, N.=54) using MSCT-guided sizing. AR was assessed by angiography immediately after TAVI (N.=313, Sellers) and by echocardiography at discharge (N.=285, VARC-2). Distinction was made between patients with grade 0-1 and grade ≥2 AR post-TAVI.
RESULTS: AR≥2 post-TAVI was seen in 91 patients or 29% (MCS 85/259: 33% vs. ESV 6/54:11%) by angiography and 94 patients or 33% (MCS 87/239:36% vs. ESV 7/46:15%) by echocardiography. By univariable analysis, patients with AR≥2 post TAVI had more AR≥2 at baseline (70% vs. 52%, P=0.003), a larger mean and maximal annulus diameter (25.0 [23.5-26.3] vs. 24.0 [22.6-26.0], P=0.025 and 27.9±2.7 mm vs. 27.0±2.8 mm, P=0.018, respectively) and a higher Agatston Score (3.9 [2.9-5.3] vs. 2.6 [1.8-3.8], P≤0.001). AR≥2 post-TAVI was more frequent after MCS than ESV (33% vs. 11%, P=0.001). There was no difference in nominal valve size relative to the patient’s annulus, nor depth of implantation. By propensity score adjusted multivariable analysis, AR≥2 at baseline (odds 2.407 [95% CI: 1.472-3.938]) but above all MCS (odds: 6.047 [95% CI; 1.307- 27.976]) were independent determinants of AR≥2 post-TAVI. The latter was also confirmed by propensity score adjusted multivariable analysis in the echocardiography population (N.=285) (odds: 5.259 [95% CI; 1.070-25.851]).
CONCLUSIONS: AR≥2 is more prevalent after MCS valve implantation and is an independent determinant of AR also when using MSCT guided-sizing.


KEY WORDS: Heart valve diseases - Transcatheter aortic valve replacement - Multidetector computed tomography

top of page