Patient-Specific Computer Simulation in TAVR With the Self-Expanding Evolut R Valve |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;2. Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark;3. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium;4. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Cologne, Heart Center, Cologne, Germany;5. Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany;6. Department of Cardiology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy;7. Department of Cardiac Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy;8. Alfieri Heart Foundation, Milan, Italy;9. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York;10. Cardialysis Clinical Trials Management and Core Laboratories, Rotterdam, the Netherlands |
| |
Abstract: | ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the added value and predictive power of the TAVIguide (Added Value of Patient-Specific Computer Simulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) software in clinical practice.BackgroundOptimal outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may become more important as TAVR shifts toward low-risk patients. Patient-specific computer simulation is able to provide prediction of outcome after TAVR. Its clinical role and validation of accuracy, however, have not yet been studied prospectively.MethodsA prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted among 80 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the Evolut R valve. Simulation was performed in 42 patients and no simulation in 38. A comparison between the valve size (decision 1) and target depth of implantation selected by the operator on the basis of multislice computed tomography and the valve size (decision 2) and target depth of implantation selected after simulation were the primary endpoints. Predictive power was examined by comparing the simulated and observed degree of aortic regurgitation.ResultsDecision 2 differed from decision 1 in 1 of 42 patients because of predicted paravalvular leakage, and changes in valve type occurred in 2 of 42. In 39 of 42 patients, decisions 1 and 2 were similar. Target depth of implantation differed in 7 of 42 patients after simulation (lower in 4 and higher in 3). In 16 of 42 patients, simulation affected the TAVR procedure; in 9, the operator avoided additional measures to achieve the target depth of implantation, and in 7 patients, additional measures were performed. There was a trend toward a higher degree of predicted than observed aortic regurgitation (17.5 vs. 12 ml/s; p = 0.13).ConclusionsPatient-specific computer simulation did not affect valve size selection but did affect the selection of the target depth of implantation and the execution of TAVR to achieve the desired target depth of implantation. |
| |
Keywords: | aortic stenosis computer simulation TAVR AR" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0030" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" aortic regurgitation CA" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0040" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" conduction abnormalities IQR" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0050" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" interquartile range LVOT" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0060" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" left ventricular outflow tract PVL" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0070" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" paravalvular leakage TAVR" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0080" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" transcatheter aortic valve replacement VARC-2" },{" #name" :" keyword" ," $" :{" id" :" kwrd0090" }," $$" :[{" #name" :" text" ," _" :" Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|