Why the study?
Does gross anatomical variation of the aortic root predict conduction damage after transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve?
Does gross anatomical variation of the aortic root predict conduction damage after transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve?
Procedural characteristics, specifically implantation depth and radial force, are more important predictors of conduction damage after TAVI than gross anatomical variations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimizing implantation depth and radial force may lower conduction damage after TAVI; leaves open the role of aortic root anatomy.
Gross anatomical variation of the aortic root and its underlying support, including the membranous septum, were not associated with the occurrence of either PPI or new LBBB. Procedural characteristics associated with these adverse outcomes suggest that the depth of implantation and radial force of the bioprosthesis, regardless of gross anatomical variability, increase the risk for conduction damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tretter et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: