CoreValve vs. Sapien 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Finite Element Analysis Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
to investigate the factors implied in the development of postoperative complications in both self-expandable and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves by means of finite element analysis (FEA).Materials and methods
FEA was integrated into CT scans to investigate two cases of postoperative device failure for valve thrombosis after the successful implantation of a CoreValve and a Sapien 3 valve. Data were then compared with two patients who had undergone uncomplicated transcatheter heart valve replacement (TAVR) with the same types of valves.Results
Computational biomechanical modeling showed calcifications persisting after device expansion, not visible on the CT scan. These calcifications determined geometrical distortion and elliptical deformation of the valve predisposing to hemodynamic disturbances and potential thrombosis. Increased regional stress was also identified in correspondence to the areas of distortion with the associated paravalvular leak.Conclusion
the use of FEA as an adjunct to preoperative imaging might assist patient selection and procedure planning as well as help in the detection and prevention of TAVR complications.
SUBMITTER: Nappi F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8146716 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) first received FDA approval for high-risk surgical patients in 2011 and has been approved for low-risk surgical patients since 2019. It is now the most common type of aortic valve replacement, and its use continues to accelerate. Computer modeling and simulation (CM&S) is a tool to aid in TAVR device design, regulatory approval, and indication in patient-specific care. This study introduces a computational fluid-structure interaction (FSI) model of TAVR with Medtronic's CoreValve Evolut R device using the immersed finite element-difference (IFED) method. We perform dynamic simulations of crimping and deployment of the Evolut R, as well as device behavior across the cardiac cycle in a patient-specific aortic root anatomy reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) image data. These IFED simulations, which incorporate biomechanics models fit to experimental tensile test data, automatically capture the contact within the device and between the self-expanding stent and native anatomy. Further, we apply realistic driving and loading conditions based on clinical measurements of human ventricular and aortic pressures and flow rates to demonstrate that our Evolut R model supports a physiological diastolic pressure load and provides informative clinical performance predictions.
| S-EPMC9832092 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8300567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLong-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.ObjectiveTo describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.InterventionLotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms.Main outcomes and measuresValve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up.ResultsA 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 relevanceThe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.
| S-EPMC9614584 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9706736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe study aims to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3-Ultra) with the SAPIEN 3 (S3) system in patients who underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR).BackgroundThe new balloon-expandable S3-Ultra system incorporates new features to reduce paravalvular leakage (PVL). However, the data after the S3-Ultra implantation is very limited.MethodsA total of 282 consecutive patients who underwent TF-TAVR with the S3-Ultra and the S3 were evaluated. The primary outcome of this study was to compare the incidence of ≥mild PVL after the S3-Ultra and S3 implantation.ResultsBetween June 2017 and November 2019, 141 patients with the S3-Ultra and 141 patients with the S3 were identified with similar baseline and preprocedural imaging characteristics (mean age: 79.6 ± 6.7 years and mean aortic annulus area: 492.5 ± 91.2 mm2 ). In total, 83 patients (29.4%) were treated with 29-mm valve. Predischarge echocardiography demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of ≥mild PVL (the total cohort: 7.2 vs. 22.3%, p < .001, and the cohort excluding 29-mm valve: 4.0 vs. 21.4%, p = .03) for the S3-Ultra. The S3-Ultra system, especially 20-, 23-, and 26-mm valve, was associated with significantly lower risk of ≥mild PVL compared with the S3 system in multivariate analysis. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes at 30-day between these groups, except for the lower incidence of major vascular complication (4.5 vs. 11.4%, p = .05) in patients with the S3-Ultra.ConclusionsIn this registry, the S3-Ultra system performed superiorly to the S3, as demonstrated by reduced ≥mild PVL, with comparable safety.
| S-EPMC8247002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with pure aortic insufficiency (PAI).BackgroundThe treatment of choice for patients with severe symptomatic PAI is SAVR. However, not all patients are candidates for surgery because of comorbidities or are deemed high risk for surgery. As a result, TAVR is being used as an off-label procedure in some patients with PAI.Patients and methodsWe analyzed the National Inpatient Sample database from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Inclusion criteria were patients with aortic valve insufficiency undergoing either TAVR or SAVR. Patients with concomitant aortic stenosis, or history of infective endocarditis, and those below the age of 18 years were excluded.ResultsA total of 14,720 patients with PAI underwent valve replacement. Of those, 6.2% underwent TAVR. The TAVR group was significantly older (median age 78 years vs 64 years; P <.001). There was no evidence of a difference in in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups. However, after adjustment, patients in the TAVR group were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, postoperative respiratory complications, and length of stay. On the other hand, those in the SAVR group were less likely to need permanent pacemakers.ConclusionThere was no evidence of a significant statistical difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with PAI treated by either SAVR or TAVR, both in unmatched and propensity-matched cohorts. TAVR could be considered for patients with PAI who are not candidates for surgery.
| S-EPMC8404150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe the case of a 57-year-old man who had severe mitral valve stenosis and regurgitation without significant annular calcification. He was not a candidate for surgical valve replacement or repair because of his substantial comorbid conditions, overall frailty, and elevated surgical risk. He underwent successful transcatheter mitral valve replacement of his native mitral valve with compassionate, off-label use of an Edwards Sapien 3 valve. A search of the literature produced no other cases like ours, which represents a further evolution of the transcatheter valve implantation concept. Further studies are needed to help define accurate valve sizing, intraprocedural positioning, and long-term device stability, as well as to determine which patients might benefit from this commercially available valve. In the meantime, our findings could present a means of treating patients who have no other options.
| S-EPMC5577954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the applicability of pivotal transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials to the real-world population of Medicare patients undergoing TAVR.BackgroundIt is unclear whether randomized controlled trial results of novel cardiovascular devices apply to patients encountered in clinical practice.MethodsCharacteristics of patients enrolled in the U.S. CoreValve pivotal trials were compared with those of the population of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR in U.S. clinical practice between November 2, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Inverse probability weighting was used to reweight the trial cohort on the basis of Medicare patient characteristics, and a "real-world" treatment effect was estimated.ResultsA total of 2,026 patients underwent TAVR in the U.S. CoreValve pivotal trials, and 135,112 patients underwent TAVR in the Medicare cohort. Trial patients were mostly similar to real-world patients at baseline, though trial patients were more likely to have hypertension (50% vs 39%) and coagulopathy (25% vs 17%), whereas real-world patients were more likely to have congestive heart failure (75% vs 68%) and frailty. The estimated real-world treatment effect of TAVR was an 11.4% absolute reduction in death or stroke (95% CI: 7.50%-14.92%) and an 8.7% absolute reduction in death (95% CI: 5.20%-12.32%) at 1 year with TAVR compared with conventional therapy (surgical aortic valve replacement for intermediate- and high-risk patients and medical therapy for extreme-risk patients).ConclusionsThe trial and real-world populations were mostly similar, with some notable differences. Nevertheless, the extrapolated real-world treatment effect was at least as high as the observed trial treatment effect, suggesting that the absolute benefit of TAVR in clinical trials is similar to the benefit of TAVR in the U.S. real-world setting.
| S-EPMC8855223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Traditionally, the only effective treatment for aortic stenosis was surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in the United States in late 2011 and provided a critical alternative therapy. Our aims were to investigate the trends in the utilization of SAVR in the early vs. late TAVR era and to assess SAVR and TAVR outcomes. Methods: Using the 2011-2017 National Inpatient Sample database, we identified hospitalizations for patients with a most responsible diagnosis of aortic stenosis during which an aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed, either SAVR or TAVR. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, procedure complications, length of stay, and mortality were analyzed. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Piecewise regression analyses were performed to assess temporal trends in SAVR and TAVR utilization. Results: A total of 542,734 AVR procedures were analyzed. The utilization of SAVR was steady until 2014 with a significant downward trend in the following years 2015-2017 (P = 0.026). In contrast, a steady upward trend was observed in the TAVR procedure with a significant increase during the years 2015-2017 (P = 0.006). Higher in-hospital mortality was observed in SAVR patients. The mortality rate declined from 2011 to 2017 in a significantly higher proportion in the TAVR compared with the SAVR group. Conclusion: Utilization of SAVR showed a downward trend during the late TAVR era (2015-2017), and TAVR utilization demonstrated a steady upward trend during the years 2011-2017. Higher in-hospital mortality was recorded in patients who underwent SAVR.
| S-EPMC8258156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Moderate/severe and even mild paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) are associated with increased mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with first and second generations of transcatheter valves. Objective:To examine the incidence, evolution, and effect on 1-year outcomes of PVR following TAVR with a third-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. Design, Setting, and Participants:Prespecified analysis of PVR in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) II SAPIEN 3 trial, conducted between October 1, 2013, and September 3, 2014. Multicenter, nonrandomized registry of 1661 patients at intermediate or high surgical risk undergoing TAVR with the SAPIEN 3. Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and high/intermediate surgical risk were enrolled in the registry at 51 sites in the United States and Canada. Interventions:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 valve. Main Outcomes and Measures:Paravalvular regurgitation was assessed in a core laboratory at 30 days and 1 year according to a 5-class scheme: 0, none or trace; 1, mild; 2, mild to moderate; 3, moderate; 4, moderate to severe; and 5, severe. We assessed the effect of PVR on 1-year mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. Results:Among the 1661 included in the registry, 1592 received a SAPIEN 3 valve and had assessment of PVR. Of these patients, 55.7% had none-trace PVR, 32.6% had mild, 8.2% had mild to moderate, and 3.5% had at least moderate PVR at 30 days. At 1 year, 9.3% of patients had died and 14.2% had been rehospitalized. Only patients with at least moderate PVR had higher 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.40; 95% CI, 1.30-4.43; P?=?.005) and composite of mortality/rehospitalization (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.52-3.62; P?<?.001). In a paired comparison including 1213 patients, 73% of the patients with at least moderate PVR at 30 days showed a reduction in PVR severity of at least 1 PVR class at 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance:In this series of patients undergoing TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve, at least moderate PVR was rare but associated with increased risk of death and heart failure rehospitalization at 1 year. Even the upper range of the mild class in the 3-class grading scheme (ie, mild to moderate in the 5-class scheme) had no significant effect on short-term mortality or rehospitalization. Most patients with at least moderate PVR at 30 days showed a decrease of PVR severity grade at 1 year. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01314313.
| S-EPMC5710359 | biostudies-literature