Abstract
Background
Little is known about the impact of the ID on outcomes and device success using balloon-expandable devices. This study sought to analyze the impact of implantation depth (ID) on procedural outcomes.
Methods
In consecutive patients (n = 969) undergoing transfemoral TAVR with new-generation balloon-expandable prostheses, the mean ID (IDMean) was determined by aortography and categorized into low, correct, and high device position. Outcomes of interest were device success (VARC-2), paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) ≥ moderate, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and the composite of the three latter outcome measures (COMPPPP).
Results
IDMean was greater among patients with PPI (median 4.0 [interquartile range 2.0; 4.0] vs. 3.5 [1.5; 5.5] mm; p = 0.002), severe PPM (3.5 [1.5; 5.0] vs. 4.0 [2.0; 6.0] mm; p = 0.028), and COMPPPP (4.0 [2.0; 6.0] vs. 3.0 [1.5; 5.5] mm; p < 0.001) when compared with the respective groups without these complications. There was no significant association between IDMean and device success or PVR ≥ moderate.
Categorization into low (7.3%), correct (90.7%), and high (2.0%) device position showed significant discrimination with an increase of severe PPM, PPI, and COMPPPP with lower position, whereas device success was not significantly affected by position. Only PVR ≥ moderate showed an asymmetric distribution with highest rates in the high and low position group, which was non-significant. However, among patients without correct position the rate of device success was 45.6%.
Conclusions
A higher device position was associated with improved outcomes. Malpositioning without functional impairment should not be classified as device failure.
Graphic abstract
The odds ratio of IDMean was calculated by univariate logistic regression for each outcome variable, showing that with higher values of IDMean (i.e., low implantation depth), the risk of severe PPM, PPI, and COMPPPP increases. The bar charts under the heading “Position category” denote the frequency of each outcome measure across patients with high, correct, and low device position. The p values are derived from chi-squared test.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Data will be made available on request.
References
Siontis GCM, Overtchouk P, Cahill TJ et al (2019) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 40(38):3143–3153. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz275
Barbanti M, Webb JG, Dvir D et al (2019) Residual challenges in TAVI: moving forward. EuroIntervention 15(10):857–866. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00788
Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P et al (2012) Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42(5):S45-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezs533
Petronio AS, Sinning JM, Van Mieghem N et al (2015) Optimal implantation depth and adherence to guidelines on permanent pacing to improve the results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the medtronic core valve system: the core valve prospective, international, post-market ADVANCE-II study JACC. Cardiovasc Interv 8(6):837–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.02.005
Vavuranakis M, Kariori M, Scott L et al (2018) Impact of “high” implantation on functionality of self-expandable bioprosthesis during the short- and long-term outcome of patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Is high implantation beneficial? Cardiovasc Ther 36(3):e12330. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-5922.12330
Piayda K, Hellhammer K, Veulemans V et al (2020) Navigating the “optimal implantation depth” with a self-expandable TAVR device in daily clinical practice. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 13(6):679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.07.048
Husser O, Pellegrini C, Kessler T et al (2016) Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantations and new-onset conduction abnormalities with the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(3):244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.09.036
Mauri V, Reimann A, Stern D et al (2016) Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(21):2200–2209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.034
Sammour Y, Banerjee K, Kumar A et al (2021) Systematic approach to high implantation of SAPIEN-3 valve achieves a lower rate of conduction abnormalities including pacemaker implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 14(1):e009407. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009407
Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of C, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic S et al (2012) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 33(19):2451–2496. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs109
Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ et al (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 38(36):2739–2791. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391
Kim WK, Praz F, Blumenstein J et al (2017) Transfemoral aortic valve implantation of Edwards SAPIEN 3 without predilatation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 89(1):E38–E43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26464
Kim WK, Mollmann H, Walther T et al (2021) Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 44(2):410–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14155
De Torres-Alba F, Kaleschke G, Diller GP et al (2016) Changes in the pacemaker rate after transition from Edwards SAPIEN XT to SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the critical role of valve implantation height. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(8):805–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.12.023
Kim WK, Mollmann H, Liebetrau C et al (2020) Effectiveness and safety of the ACURATE neo prosthesis in 1,000 patients with aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 131:12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.05.044
C Varc-3 Writing, Genereux P, Piazza N et al (2021) Valve academic research consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur Heart J. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa799
Rogers T, Greenspun BC, Weissman G et al (2020) Feasibility of coronary access and aortic valve reintervention in low-risk TAVR patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 13(6):726–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.01.202
Tang GHL, Kaneko T (2018) Assessing implant depth using aortography in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: what you see may not be what you get. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(2):129–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.11.004
Acknowledgements
We thank Elizabeth Martinson, PhD, from the KHFI Editorial Office for her editorial assistance.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
WK: proctor, advisory board or speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, Shockwave Med. HN: proctor for Boston Scientific. CH: advisory board Medtronic. All other authors declare that they have no relevant conflict of interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Justus-Liebig University of Gießen.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, WK., Renker, M., Doerr, O. et al. Impact of implantation depth on outcomes of new-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves. Clin Res Cardiol 110, 1983–1992 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-021-01932-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-021-01932-w