E-viri
Recenzirano
-
Nombela-Franco, Luis, MD; Ruel, Marc, MD; Radhakrishnan, Sam, MD; Webb, John G., MD; Hansen, Marc, MD; Labinaz, Marino, MD; Thompson, Chris, MD; Fremes, Stephen, MD; Dumont, Eric, MD; DeLarochellière, Robert, MD; Doyle, Daniel, MD; Urena, Marina, MD; Mok, Michael, MBSS; Ribeiro, Henrique Barbosa, MD; Roifman, Idan, MD; Watkins, Stuart, MD; Dumesnil, Jean G., MD; Pibarot, Philippe, PhD; Rodés-Cabau, Josep, MD
The American journal of cardiology, 04/2013, Letnik: 111, Številka: 7Journal Article
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expandable CoreValve (CV) and the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN (ES) bioprostheses has been widely used for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. However, a direct comparison of the hemodynamic results associated with these 2 prostheses is lacking. The aim of the present study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of both bioprostheses. A total of 41 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CV prosthesis were matched 1:1 for prosthesis size (26 mm), aortic annulus size, left ventricular ejection fraction, body surface area, and body mass index with patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the ES prosthesis. Doppler-echocardiographic data were prospectively collected before the intervention and at hospital discharge, and all examinations were sent to, and analyzed in, a central echocardiography core laboratory. The mean transprosthetic residual gradient was lower (p = 0.024) in the CV group (7.9 ± 3.1 mm Hg) than in the ES group (9.7 ± 3.8 mm Hg). The effective orifice area tended to be greater in the CV group (1.58 ± 0.31 cm2 vs 1.49 ± 0.24 cm2 , p = 0.10). The incidence of severe prosthesis–patient mismatch was, however, similar between the 2 groups (effective orifice area indexed to the body surface area ≤0.65 cm2 /m2 ; CV 9.8%, ES 9.8%, p = 1.0). The incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation was greater with the CV (grade 1 or more in 85.4%, grade 2 or more in 39%) than with the ES (grade 1 or more in 58.5%, grade 2 or more in 22%; p = 0.001). The number and extent of paravalvular leaks were greater in the CV group (p <0.01 for both comparisons). In conclusion, transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CV prosthesis was associated with a lower residual gradient but a greater rate of paravalvular aortic regurgitation compared to the ES prosthesis. The potential clinical consequences of the differences in hemodynamic performance between these transcatheter heart valves needs to be addressed in future studies.
