Self-expanding valves were associated with significantly greater CAD progression by QFR compared to balloon-expandable valves at 2 years (47.4% vs. 39.3%, p=0.038).
Cohort (n=92)
Does valve type (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable) affect the anatomic and hemodynamic progression of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing TAVR?
In patients undergoing TAVR who require repeat angiography, CAD progression is highly prevalent and appears more pronounced hemodynamically (by QFR) in those receiving self-expanding compared to balloon-expandable valves.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 47.4% vs 39.3%
valor p: p=0.038
BACKGROUND: The progression of coronary artery disease (CAD) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is poorly understood. Changes in coronary hemodynamics after TAVR and their relationship with atherosclerosis remain an active area of investigation. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) offer objective, reproducible assessments of coronary disease burden, hemodynamics, and progression. AIMS: To evaluate anatomic and hemodynamic progression of CAD in select patients undergoing TAVR using QCA and QFR, and to compare outcomes by valve type-self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEV). METHODS: A total of 92 patients who underwent TAVR and had both pre- and post-TAVR invasive coronary angiography (CA) were retrospectively analyzed. QCA and QFR analyses were performed on major coronary arteries. CAD progression was defined in 2 ways: (1) QCA diameter stenosis (DS) increase ≥ 10% or baseline 0.80 and follow-up ≤ 0.80. Clinical and echocardiographic data, statin use, and antiplatelet therapy were assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 756 days (IQR 254-1302), CAD progression in patients with clinically indicated post-TAVR CA was observed in 96.6% of patients using QCA and in 85.6% of patients using QFR. Among vessel subsegments, CAD progression by QCA was greatest in the LAD proximal and mid segments (60.99% and 58.46%, respectively), and lowest in distal LCX and distal RCA (37.63%, 39.04%, respectively). CAD progression by QFR was significantly greater in SEV when compared to BEV (1-year: 39.4% vs. 21.9%; 2-year: 47.4% vs. 39.3%, log rank p = 0.038). There was no statistically significant difference in the QCA-defined CAD progression between SEV and BEV, though a numerically higher progression was seen in SEV. CONCLUSIONS: Most TAVR recipients undergoing clinically indicated repeat CA demonstrate CAD progression on serial angiography. By QFR, progression is influenced by valve type, while by QCA and QFR, trended with baseline disease severity. Further investigation into coronary progression following TAVR is warranted.
Galo et al. (Thu,) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease (n=92). Self-expanding valves (SEV) vs. Balloon-expandable valves (BEV) was evaluated on CAD progression by QFR (p=0.038). Self-expanding valves were associated with significantly greater CAD progression by QFR compared to balloon-expandable valves at 2 years (47.4% vs. 39.3%, p=0.038).