Journals / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2021 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 8

Evaluation of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure utilizing the new European consensus definition in patients undergoing TAVI with first-generation devices: Outcomes beyond 5 years from a single center in Turkey

Pages
579–587
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It may be suggested that there is no major concern associated with TAVI even with first-generation devices regarding long-term durability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The long-term durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves continues to be a major concern.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We aim to analyze the durability of TAVI beyond 5 years and to report the frequency of SVD and BVF.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It may be suggested that there is no major concern associated with TAVI even with first-generation devices regarding long-term durability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The long-term durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves continues to be a major concern. Standardized criteria of the structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) have recently been defined. Limited studies have evaluated the longterm durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) according to these new definitions. We aim to analyze the durability of TAVI beyond 5 years and to report the frequency of SVD and BVF. Methods: A total of 89 patients who had undergone TAVI and had theoretically completed at least 5 years after the procedure were included. Either a Medtronic CoreValve or an Edwards SAPIEN XT valve were implanted in the patients. New standardized definitions were used to evaluate SVD and BVF. Results: The mean age of the patients was 78.70±6.95 years. SVD occured in 4 (4.5%) patients during 6 years of follow-up. Severe SVD was observed in 2 patients (2.2%), and these patients had the New York Heart Association class II symptoms. Both patients with severe SVD also met the criteria of BVF. Moderate SVD was observed in 2 patients (2.2%), and these patients had no valve-related symptoms. Of the 4 SVD cases, 2 were associated with increased mean transaortic gradients, whereas the remaining 2 cases were associated with intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation. All patients with SVD are still alive, and none of them have required aortic valve reintervention. Conclusion: Although first-generation TAVI devices were used, we determined the low rate of SVD and BVF at the 6-year follow-up. It may be suggested that there is no major concern associated with TAVI even with first-generation devices regarding long-term durability.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENTÜRK, B., DURSUN, H., ÇÖLLÜOĞLU, T., ÖZDAMAR, H., EKİN, T., TANRIVERDİ, Z., KAYA, D. (2021). Evaluation of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure utilizing the new European consensus definition in patients undergoing TAVI with first-generation devices: Outcomes beyond 5 years from a single center in Turkey. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 8, 579–587. https://ajindex.com/articles/407449

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Gentile F, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2021
  2. e35-71. [Crossref] 2. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in IntermediateRisk Patients. N Engl J Med 2016
  3. [Crossref] 3. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, Kleiman NS, Søndergaard L, Mumtaz M, et al.
  4. SURTAVI Investigators. Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med 2017
  5. [Crossref] 4. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, Herrmann HC, Williams M, Babaliaros V, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016
  6. [Crossref] 5. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Fleisher LA, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2017
  7. e1159-95. [Crossref] 6. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, et al.
  8. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2017
  9. [Crossref] 7. Kolte D, Vlahakes GJ, Palacios IF, Sakhuja R, Passeri JJ, Inglessis I, et al. Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019
  10. [Crossref] 8. Vipparthy SC, Ravi V, Avula S, Kambhatla S, Mahmood M, Kabour A, et al. Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Low Surgical Risk. Am J Cardiol 2020
  11. [Crossref] 9. Toggweiler S, Humphries KH, Lee M, Binder RK, Moss RR, Freeman M, et al. 5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013
  12. [Crossref] 10. Barbanti M, Petronio AS, Ettori F, Latib A, Bedogni F, De Marco F, et al. 5-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With CoreValve Prosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015
  13. [Crossref] 11. Mack MJ, Leon MB,