CT simulations reveal that Navitor depth impacts redo-TAVR feasibility and coronary access, suggesting optimal depth with S3 valves.
The impact of implant depth of the Abbott Navitor intra-annular, self-expanding valve on redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) feasibility is unknown. The authors sought to determine the feasibility of redo-TAVR and coronary access with Edwards Sapien 3 (S3) valve after initial Navitor valve, based on various implant depths on computed tomography (CT) simulation. Using 2050 pre-TAVR CTs of patients with native aortic stenosis, initial Navitor TAVR simulations were done at 3 implant depths (0 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm), with frame expansion assumed at native annular dimensions and commissural alignment not achievable. Redo-TAVR with S3 was deemed unfeasible based on valve-to-sinotubular junction and/or valve-to-sinus height distances <2 mm, while the neoskirt height of the S3 valve based on target implant depth determined coronary access feasibility. Redo-TAVR was deemed the least unfeasible in 2.3% of patients with initial Navitor implant depth at 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted lower at Node 2 vs 40.5% of patients with initial Navitor depth at 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted higher at Node 3 (P < 0.0001). Similarly, coronary access was the least challenging with initial Navitor depth at 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted lower at Node 2 (P < 0.0001). These results were similar across all Navitor valve sizes. Commissural alignment in Navitor improved redo-TAVR feasibility only when implanted at 5 mm. In our CT simulation study, redo-TAVR and coronary access were predicted to be the most favorable with initial Navitor implant depth of 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted lower at Node 2. In vivo analysis will help confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khera et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: