Can Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation Be Repaired
Interv Cardiol. 2022 Feb; fourteen(1): 26–30.
TAVI for Pure Native Aortic Regurgitation: Are We In that location Yet?
Eduardo A Arias
1. Interventional Cardiology Department, National Institute of Cardiology Ignacio Chávez, Mexico City, Mexico
Amit Bhan
two. Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew'southward Infirmary, London, U.k.
Zhan Y Lim
3. Cardiology Department, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore
Michael Mullen
2. Barts Centre Middle, St Bartholomew'southward Infirmary, London, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland
Received 2022 Nov 12; Accepted 2022 January 7.
Abstract
Treatment of degenerative aortic stenosis has been transformed past transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over the past x–15 years. The success of various technologies has led operators to attempt to broaden the indications, and many patients with native valve aortic regurgitation have been treated 'off label' with like techniques. Notwithstanding, the alterations in the structure of the valve complex in pure native aortic regurgitation are distinct to those in degenerative aortic stenosis, and there are unique challenges to exist overcome by percutaneous valves. Yet some promise has been shown with both not-dedicated and dedicated devices. In this commodity, the authors explore some of these challenges and review the current evidence base of operations for TAVI for aortic regurgitation.
Keywords: Aortic valve stenosis, native aortic valve regurgitation, 2d generation TAVI device, TAVI, transcatheter valve interventions, valvular middle disease
During the by decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised the interventional treatment of aortic stenosis (AS).[ane] It has rapidly evolved from a handling used on a compassionate basis for inoperable patients to being the standard of care in high-take a chance AS.[two,3] In that accomplice information technology has proven to be non-junior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of mortality, and superior to optimal medical treatment (OMT) in terms of mortality and rehospitalisations.[4,v] Prove and indications are now moving towards its suitability for intermediate and low-gamble profiles.
Randomised trials such every bit Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER 2) and Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients (SURTAVI) accept shown that TAVI is a safe and constructive treatment pick for people with intermediate run a risk; being non-junior to SAVR overall and superior to surgery when it is performed using the transfemoral approach.[half dozen,vii] The randomised controlled Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial, which included intermediate and depression-risk patients, has also confirmed the safety and efficacy in a depression-risk setting.[8] It is of import to clarify that low-risk patients are not necessarily younger patients (the mean age in all the mentioned studies was about 80 years). This leaves unanswered questions about valve durability; as far equally we know the incidence of structural valve deterioration afterwards 5 years is very low, merely information across this time is scarce.[nine–12]
The utilize of TAVI is continuing to evolve worldwide. Transcatheter heart valves (THV) are being used for valve-in-valve treatment in failing bio-prostheses, treatment of bicuspid aortic valves in younger patients with complex anatomical features and for native pure aortic regurgitation (NPAR). This is currently an off-characterization indication as it poses multiple challenges with variable and unpredictable firsthand and long-term results.[13–15] The aim of this review is to draw: the main differences between AS and NPAR; its impact on process complexity; the THVs bachelor for NPAR treatment and electric current evidence regarding success and curt-term results.
Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation
From a pathophysiological point of view, severe AS is characterised by pressure overload with consistent concentric hypertrophy and afterload mismatch.[16] In about cases, after TAVI is performed and this mismatch corrected, left ventricular ejection fraction increases and at that place is regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy.[17] This explains why patients have the clear benefits of quality of life and life expectancy after TAVI.
On the other manus, severe NPAR is characterised by book overload and eccentric hypertrophy (increased ventricular volume with little increment in wall thickness and increased LV wall stress) associated with LV cavity structural modifications and progressive LV dysfunction.[18] These structural modifications are due to cardiomyocyte enlargement triggered by multiple growth factors that modulate cardiac output past means of the Frank-Starling machinery. Once the Frank-Starling machinery is lost, LV role is irreversibly impaired.[19,20] From an anatomic point of view, degenerative Equally results from progressive calcification of the aortic valve leaflets and annulus, while NPAR is ordinarily the result of leaflet degeneration or incompetence, aortic root dilatation with aortic annulus enlargement, or both. These anatomical differences pose particular challenges for TAVI, which we volition discuss after. Effigy 1 depicts the master anatomical differences between AS and AR.
Chief Differences Between Aortic Stenosis and Aortic Regurgitation on CT Scan
A: Spherical and dilated aortic annulus in AR compared with a more elyptical one in AS
B: Absence of calcium on leaflets in AR compared with heavily calcified leaflets on As
C: Severe aortic regurgitation (* eccentric LV hypertrophy; -> dilated aortic root)
D: Severe aortic regurgitation (* eccentric LV hypertrophy; -> dilated aortic root).
AR = aortic regurgitation
Every bit = aortic stenosis.
Electric current Direction of Aortic Regurgitation
Prevalence of AR increases with age and it affects near thirteen% of patients with isolated, native left-sided valvular middle affliction.[21] Symptoms related to AR tend to appear late in the history of the affliction, once LV dilatation and systolic dysfunction have gear up in. Patients with severe AR and an ejection fraction <30% accept an almanac mortality risk of 20%, but unfortunately simply 5% of these patients are given SAVR according to data from the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Affliction.[21]
Co-ordinate to electric current European and US guidelines, patients with symptomatic moderate/astringent AR and decreased LV systolic part (<l%) or severe LV dilatation (LV end-systolic diameter >50 mm; LV terminate-diastolic bore >65–seventy mm; LV stop-systolic volume index >45 ml/m2) should be considered for SAVR.[2,iii] Nonetheless, there is a high-run a risk subgroup who are inoperable and who could exist considered for TAVI, taking into business relationship the multiple procedural challenges and the fact that information technology still is an off-label indication.[22] To date, the standard of treat severe NPAR is SAVR with TAVI emerging as an pick for high-adventure or inoperable patients.
Technical Challenges During TAVI for NPAR
The main challenge that interventionists face during TAVI for NPAR is the absenteeism of annular and leaflet calcification, which is necessary for device anchoring and stabilisation during deployment. The lack of calcium, the increased stroke volume secondary to severe AR and the presence of aortic root dilatation makes device positioning and deployment very hard and there is a predisposition to embolisation or malposition of the prosthesis with subsequent moderate to severe post-procedural AR (associated with worst clinical outcomes).[23] Valve migration can occur to the aorta or deep into the LV up to several hours after implantation.[24] Valve oversizing has been proposed to reduce the risk of valve migration. Published data recommend a xv–20% oversize when selecting the THV size with the caution not to oversize across twenty% due to the take chances of annular rupture and conduction organisation abnormalities.[25,26]
THV Devices Available for NPAR
Second generation THVs that have been used for TAVI for NPAR can be divided into non-dedicated devices: CoreValve Evolut R (Medtronic), Sapien 3 (Edwards Lifesciences), Lotus valve (non commercially available at fourth dimension of writing) and ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific) and defended devices: JenaValve (JenaValve) and the J.Valve (JC Medical).[27] Non-dedicated devices are widely used for TAVI for AS (their mechanisms are dependent on annulus and leaflet calcification for fixation), while the dedicated devices have been developed to exist implanted in not-calcified valves anchoring in the aortic annulus and clipping the native valve leaflets for stability.[28]
Self-expandable THVs have been the preferred non-defended devices used for TAVI for NPAR with CoreValve being the most widely studied. Self-expandable THVs can be recaptured and repositioned which theoretically make the prosthesis behave in a more anticipated manner.[29,30] Experience with ACURATE neo (transfemoral) is limited to successful instance reports and there is a small series of viii patients treated with ACURATE TA (transapical) that showed adept results based on its hourglass design, stabilisation arches and upper crown that ensure coaxial alignment and device stability during deployment.[31,32] The commencement successful transfemoral implantation of a Lotus valve in pure NPAR was reported in 2022 and the authors warrant its employ based on its repositionability and retrievability.[33]
Sapien three valve (airship expandable) implantation has been shown to exist feasible for NPAR in three cases reported in 2022. Deployment position was more ventricular than that recommended for AS and the annulus oversizing ratio was >15% using from 3 to x mm extra volume co-ordinate to the LV outflow tract dimensions.[34,35]
The JenaValve, a self–expanding, 32Fr transapical valve with three integrated locators was the first dedicated device to become the CE mark for NPAR based on its anatomically correct positioning in the native cusps and clipping of the THV onto the native leaflets.[36,37] Since June 2022, the transapical system is no longer available just development of a new generation transfemoral system is underway and has been used successfully for NPAR in a offset-in-human case report in 2022.[38] The Longterm Safety and Performance of the JenaValve (JUPITER) registry showed a procedural success rate of 96.vii% with 0% incidence of valve malposition and moderate to severe post-procedural AR.[39]
Some other NPAR-defended second generation TAVI device is the J-Valve, which has a unique system composed of 3 U-shape graspers that facilitate intuitive self-positioning implantation providing axial and radial fixation by embracing the native valve leaflets. A successful first-in-human implantation was reported in 2022 but currently, the device is simply available in Asia.[40] Tabular array 1 shows the different THVs available for NPAR.
Tabular array one:
Bachelor Non-dedicated and Dedicated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices for Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation
| Valve name | Mechanism | Utilise in AR | Company |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAPIEN three transcatheter centre valve | Balloon expandable | Non-dedicated | Edwards Lifesciences |
| ACURATE neo™ | Self-expandable | Non-dedicated | Boston Scientific |
| LOTUS | Self-expandable | Non-dedicated | Boston Scientific |
| CoreValve™ Evolut™ R | Self-expandable | Non-dedicated | Medtronic |
| JenaValve™ | Cocky-expandable | Dedicated | JenaValve Engineering science |
| J Valve™ | Self-expandable | Defended | JC Medical |
TAVI for NPAR: Evidence on Early on Generation Devices
The first use of TAVI for NPAR was reported by Roy et al. in 2022 and included the retrospective analysis of 43 patients at 14 centres who had TAVI for severe inoperable NPAR. All cases used CoreValve prosthesis and as role of the process protocol two pigtail catheters in different sinuses of Valsalva were used to guide THV delivery nether rapid pacing. Results included a 97.7% success charge per unit (according to protocol and non VARC-two guidelines), in 18.6% of the cases a 2d valve was required during the index procedure for residual AR (all of which had absent valve calcification) and the one-twelvemonth all-crusade mortality was 21.four%.[41] Multiple studies followed using early generation devices (CoreValve being the most used followed past Sapien/Sapien XT, JenaValve, Straight menstruation and ACURATE TA), and in 2022 Franzone et al. published a meta-assay of 13 studies with a total of 237 severe inoperable NPAR patients without Every bit treated with TAVI.[42–44] In fourscore% of the cases a self-expandable valve was used and less than 25% of the cases were treated with devices approved for AR. Device success ranged from 77% to 100% with a vii% incidence of second valve implant due to either device migration or severe post-procedural AR. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality at 30 days ranged from 0 to xxx% with a summary approximate rate of seven%. Moderate to severe post-procedural AR was reported in upwards to 88% of patients with a summary estimate rate of 9%.[45] The JenaValve subgroup had a 0% incidence of moderate to astringent post-procedural AR. Given the heterogeneity of the groups and procedural aspects, no solid conclusions in terms of safety and efficacy can be drawn from these initial experiences but all of them showed that TAVI for NPAR is complex, with success rates below those reported for As and a high incidence of valve malposition and moderate to severe post-procedural AR.
TAVI for NPAR: Evidence on New Generation Devices
New generation devices (NGDs) such as CoreValve Evolut R, ACURATE neo, Lotus valve and Sapien 3 have features that distinguish them from their predecessors. Characteristics such equally retrievability and repositioning in the case of the cocky-expandable valves and the adaptive seal or skirt found in Sapien 3 and Lotus valve offering a more than controlled and predictable TAVI procedure.[46,47] Three recent retrospective studies have analysed the use of new generation TAVI devices for NPAR and compared their results with early generation devices.
De Backer et al. reported the early on safety and clinical efficacy of TAVI for NPAR in 254 patients from 46 centres with an EGD/NGD proportion of 43% and 57%, respectively. Overall device success according to Valve Bookish Research Consortium (VARC-2) criteria was 67%, being higher with NGD (82% versus 47% when compared with EGD).[9] NGD use was associated with less valve malpositioning and less moderate to astringent post-procedural AR. Cardiovascular mortality was too lower with NGD. As part of the study they focused on THV CT-scan sizing and institute a pregnant increment on the incidence of device embolisation with relative THV under or oversizing when compared with neutral sizing. The authors found no causal explanation for this phenomenon other than valve design and absence of calcification.[48]
Yoon et al. reported 331 astringent NPAR patients from xl centres (36% EGD and 64% NGD). Main endpoint was all-crusade and cardiovascular bloodshed at one year. Overall device success was 74.iii% and once again, second valve implantation, moderate to severe post-procedural AR and cardiovascular mortality were significantly lower with NGD (12.7% versus 24.4%; 4.2% versus 18.viii% and 9.half-dozen% versus 23.6%, respectively) when compared with EGD. They also found that the absenteeism of calcium or the presence of mild calcification was associated with less frequent device success with EGD but non with NGD. A larger annulus (>25.2mm) was associated with less frequent device success either with EGD or NGD. Finally, they showed that a higher degree of perimeter oversizing index (>15%) was associated with less frequent moderate to severe AR.[49]
Sawaya et al. performed a retrospective analysis of 78 patients with severe NPAR treated with TAVI. The bulk of cases were done under general anaesthesia via transfemoral admission with CoreValve; given its radial force at both the annular level and ascending aorta and also because information technology could exist significantly oversized without risk of annular rupture. Results were consistent with those that we have previously described. NGD showed a lower incidence of valve malposition, a lower degree of AR and cardiovascular bloodshed versus EGD. They also found that a BMI <20kg/k2, Guild of Thoracic Surgeons score >8%, major vascular complication or new left bundle branch block, and more than moderate AR were contained predictors of bloodshed and New York Heart Association Iii–Four at xxx days afterward TAVI for NPAR.[50] All of these findings were confirmed in a recent meta-analysis.[51] Table 2 summarises the principal results of these 3 studies.
Table 2:
Main Results of Recent Retrospective Studies Evaluating Early Generation Devices Versus New Generation Devices
| Author, yr | Patients (north) | EGD | NGD | Device Success (EGD/NGD) | CV Mortality (EGD/NGD) | 2nd Valve (EGD/NGD) | AR >Moderate (EGD/NGD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roy et al. 2022[41] | 43 | 100% | NA | 74.4%/NA | x.seven%*/NA | 18.vi%/NA | 4.7%/NA |
| Yoon et al. 2022[49] | 331 | 36% | 64% | 61.iii%/81.1% | 23.half-dozen%/ix.6%* | 24.four%/12.7% | 18.8%/iv.2% |
| De Backer et al. 2022[48] | 254 | 43% | 57% | 47%/82% | 12%/7%† | forty.4%/9.4% | 31%/4% |
| Sawaya et al. 2022[50] | 78 | 47.4% | 52.6% | 54%/85% | 11%/5%† | 24%/10% | 29%/2% |
| Silaschi et al. 2022[39] | xxx | NA | 100% | NA/96.vii% | NA/ten% | NA/0% | NA/0% |
Interventional Tips and Tricks for TAVI for NPAR
The following recommendations are fabricated based on personal experience and information gathered from published cases. The start and 1 of the nearly important steps before TAVI for NPAR is a pre-procedural CT assessment with focus on the annulus expanse, sinuses of Valsalva and aortic root diameters and device size selection keeping in mind that a 15–20% oversizing alphabetize is recommended in this setting (oversizing index formula: [(device nominal perimeter/area) / (annulus/perimeter area measured by CT) – 1] x 100.[52] The procedure should be carried out preferably under full general anaesthesia, as it tin exist lengthy and complicated. Transoesophageal echocardiogram can be used to help with valve positioning but more importantly to accurately evaluate the caste of postal service-procedural AR. Given the absence of calcification and fluoroscopic landmarks many operators use two pigtail catheters in unlike sinuses of Valsalva, or CT fusion-guided imaging for valve deployment. Balloon predilatation should not be performed unless it is used to measure out the annulus when there is no available CT. Rapid pacing is mandatory for balloon expandable valves and it can as well be used with self-expandable valves to reduce the stroke volume, helping to stabilise the aortic annulus and limit THV motion by reducing the regurgitant jet. While deploying the valve, always pay shut attending to the haemodynamic profile, especially to the waveform, the dicrotic notch and the aortic diastolic pressure.[53] Whenever using a balloon-expandable valve, keep in mind that variable amounts of actress book should be added to avert valve embolisation. Finally, based on the bear witness we take presented, the use of NGD should exist mandatory in TAVI for NPAR.
Conclusion
Patients with NPAR who are candidates for TAVI tend to be in a poorer clinical condition than many gimmicky Every bit patients, due to LV dilatation and dysfunction. These facts alongside the technical difficulties met during the procedure and the lack of transfemoral defended devices make TAVI for NPAR an 'off-characterization' treatment. Even though ameliorate results are achieved with NGD in terms of lower rates of valve malposition/2d valve insertion during index procedure and lower incidence of moderate to severe post-procedural AR, clinical results are far from those achieved with TAVI for Every bit. To date at that place are no randomised clinical trials and all the evidence we have comes from retrospective studies with heterogeneous populations and no standardised TAVI protocol for NPAR.
New dedicated devices are being designed and those available are evolving to transfemoral as we go along to gain experience of using not-dedicated devices for this patient group. Nonetheless, TAVI for NPAR has to be considered the treatment of choice for inoperable severe AR patients because it offers a meliorate prognosis than optimal medical treatment. TAVI has been established for inoperable or high-risk patients, simply we demand to amend. TAVI is not yet the standard of care for NPAR, only it is likely to be established equally such in time.
References
1. Perrin N, Frei A, Noble Due south. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Update in 2022. Eur J Intern Med. 2018;55:12–9. doi: ten.1016/j.ejim.2018.07.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
ii. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular eye disease (version 2022): the Joint Job Strength on the Management of Valvular Centre Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:S1–44. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs455. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
three. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO et al. 2022 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2022 AHA/ACC Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a written report of the American Higher of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Exercise Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:252–89. doi: ten.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack Yard et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. Northward Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607. doi: x.1056/NEJMoa1008232. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
five. Eltchaninoff H, Prat A, Gilard 1000 et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: early results of the FRANCE (FRench Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards) registry. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:191–vii. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq261. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
six. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-take chances patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
vii. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-adventure patients. North Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321–31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700456. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
viii. Sondergaard L, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N et al. Ii-year outcomes in patients with astringent aortic valve stenosis randomized to transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: the all-comers nordic aortic valve intervention randomized clinical trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (e003665) 2022;9:pii. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003665. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
nine. Kumar A, Sato Grand, Banerjee 1000 Hemodynamic durability of transcatheter aortic valves using the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022. epub ahead of printing. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
10. Eltchaninoff H, Durand East, Barbanti Thousand, Abdel-Wahab M. TAVI and valve operation: update on definitions, immovability, transcatheter middle valve failure modes and management. EuroIntervention. 2018;xiv(Suppl AB):AB64–73. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-xviii-00653. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Holy EW, Kebernik J, Abdelghani M et al. Long-term immovability and haemodynamic functioning of a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve across five years after implantation: a prospective observational study applying the standardised definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure. EuroIntervention. (e390) 2022;fourteen:vi. doi: ten.4244/EIJ-D-xviii-00041. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Barbanti M, Petronio AS, Ettori F et al. v-year outcomes later transcatheter aortic valve implantation with corevalve prosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;viii:1084–91. doi: ten.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.024. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Takagi H, Mitta S, Ando T. Meta-analysis of valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022. epub alee of press. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
14. Das R, Puri R. Transcatheter treatment of bicuspid aortic valve illness: imaging and interventional considerations. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2018;5:91. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00091. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. De Capitalist O, Sondergaard 50. Challenges when expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation to younger patients. Front end Cardiovasc Med. 2018;5:45. doi: ten.3389/fcvm.2018.00045. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Grossman West, Paulus WJ. Myocardial stress and hypertrophy: a complex interface between biophysics and cardiac remodeling. J Clin Invest. 2013;123:3701–3. doi: 10.1172/JCI69830. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Kasapkara HA, Ayhan H, Sari C et al. Impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation on the left ventricular mass. Cardiol J. 2015;22:645–fifty. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2015.0025. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Guadalajara JF, Gual J, Martinez SC et al. [Myocardial hypertrophy in aortic insufficiency as a bounty machinery. Implications for surgical indication] Curvation Inst Cardiol Mex. 1992;62:351–60. [in Spanish] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xix. Harvey PA, Leinwand LA. The cell biology of disease: cellular mechanisms of cardiomyopathy. J Cell Biol. 2011;194:355–65. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201101100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Mannacio V, Guadagno East, Mannacio L et al. Comparing of left ventricular myocardial structure and role in patients with aortic stenosis and those with pure aortic regurgitation. Cardiology. 2015;132:111–eight. doi: ten.1159/000431283. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Lung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Affliction. Eur Centre J. 2003;24:1231–43. doi: 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00201-10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Spina R, Anthony C, Muller DW, Roy D. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for native aortic valve regurgitation. Interv Cardiol. 2015;ten:49–54. doi: 10.15420/icr.2015.x.one.49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Maeno Y, Yoon SH, Abramowitz Y et al. Result of ascending aortic dimension on astute procedural success following self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;244:100–v. doi: ten.1016/j.ijcard.2017.05.120. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Fankhauser CD, Nietlispach F, Emmert MY, Maisano F. Antegrade valve embolization after transcatheter handling for pure aortic regurgitation. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:856. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv237. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Alkhouli M, Sengupta P, Badhwar 5. Toward precision in balloon-expandable tavr: oversizing tight versus simply correct. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:821–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Dvir D, Webb JG, Piazza N et al. Multicenter evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using either SAPIEN XT or CoreValve: degree of device oversizing past computed-tomography and clinical outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:508–15. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25823. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Treede H, Rastan A, Ferrari M et al. JenaValve. EuroIntervention. 2012;viii(Suppl Q):Q88–93. doi: ten.4244/EIJV8SQA16. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Puri R, Chamandi C, Rodriguez-Gabella T, Rodes-Cabau J. Future of transcatheter aortic valve implantation – evolving clinical indications. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018;fifteen:57–65. doi: x.1038/nrcardio.2017.116. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Bruschi Grand, Colombo P, Nava S et al. Evolut R implantation to treat astringent pure aortic regurgitation in a patient with mitral bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. (e521) 2022;102:four. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.054. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Bruschi G, De Marco F, Martinelli L, Klugmann South. CoreValve® transcatheter self-expandable aortic bioprosthesis. Good Rev Med Devices. 2013;x:fifteen–26. doi: 10.1586/erd.12.64. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Wendt D, Kahlert P, Pasa S et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve for severe aortic regurgitation: expanding the limits. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;vii:1159–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Cerillo AG, Griese D, Berti S. Successful percutaneous implantation of symetis ACURATE neo transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis for the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:319–23. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26402. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Wohrle J, Rodewald C, Rottbauer W. Transfemoral aortic valve implantation in pure native aortic valve insufficiency using the repositionable and retrievable lotus valve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:993–5. doi: ten.1002/ccd.26062. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Urena M, Himbert D, Ohlmann P et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement to treat pure aortic regurgitation on noncalcified native valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1705–vi. doi: x.1016/j.jacc.2016.07.746. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Kaneko H, Hoelschermann F, Tambor G et al. Rescue valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e23–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.11.031. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Treede H, Mohr FW, Baldus S et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the JenaValve system: astute and thirty-day results of the multicentre CE-marking written report. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (e131) 2022;41:8. doi: x.1093/ejcts/ezs129. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Seiffert M, Bader R, Kappert U et al. Initial German experience with transapical implantation of a second-generation transcatheter centre valve for the treatment of aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;vii:1168–74. doi: ten.1016/j.jcin.2014.05.014. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Schafer U, Schirmer J, Niklas S et al. First-in-human implantation of a novel transfemoral selfexpanding transcatheter centre valve to treat pure aortic regurgitation. EuroIntervention. 2017;thirteen:1296–9. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00502. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Silaschi Thousand, Conradi L, Wendler O et al. The JUPITER registry: one-year outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation using a 2d generation transcatheter heart valve for aortic regurgitation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:1345–51. doi: ten.1002/ccd.27370. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
twoscore. Zhu D, Hu J, Meng West, Guo Y. Successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure aortic regurgitation using a new second generation self-expanding J-Valve™ system – the first in-man implantation. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24:411–4. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.10.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Roy DA, Schaefer U, Guetta Five et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1577–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.018. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Frerker C, Schewel J, Schewel D et al. Expansion of the indication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation – feasibility and outcome in 'off-characterization' patients compared with 'on-characterization' patients. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015;27:229–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Schlingloff F, Schafer U, Frerker C et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation of a second-generation valve for pure aortic regurgitation: procedural outcome, haemodynamic data and follow-upwards. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:388–93. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu155. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Testa L, Latib A, Rossi ML et al. CoreValve implantation for severe aortic regurgitation: a multicentre registry. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:739–45. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I6A127. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Franzone A, Piccolo R, Siontis GC et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of pure native aortic valve regurgitation: a systematic review. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;ix:2308–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.049. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Pesarini G, Lunardi M, Piccoli A et al. Effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with pure aortic regurgitation and avant-garde eye failure. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121:642–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.11.042. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Nakamura Y, Teefy P, Kiaii B et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a patient with astringent aortic insufficiency and minimal aortic annular calcification. Can J Cardiol. (e9) 2022;29:1138. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.eleven.037. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. De Capitalist O, Pilgrim T, Simonato G et al. Usefulness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for treatment of pure native aortic valve regurgitation. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1028–35. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.05.044. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Yoon SH, Schmidt T, Bleiziffer South et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in pure native aortic valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2752–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Sawaya FJ, Deutsch MA, Seiffert M et al. Rubber and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation in native valves and failing surgical bioprostheses: results from an international registry study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1048–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Rawasia WF, Khan MS, Usman MS Prophylactic and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for native aortic valve regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-assay. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
52. Zhu D, Chen Due west, Peng L, Guo Y. Valve sizing for pure aortic regurgitation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: deformation dynamic of the aortic annulus in different valve pathology may exist dissimilar. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;eight:372–three. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.xi.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Ozpelit E, Dursun H, Gencpinar T et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe pure aortic regurgitation: looking beyond the paradigm. Anatol J Cardiol. 2015;15:681–2. doi: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2015.6412. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6406131/
Posted by: holmesshoustor.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Can Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation Be Repaired"
Post a Comment