Key result
High-depth simulated S3-in-Evolut redo TAVR shows severe coronary constraint in ~64% of Asian patients.
Why the study?
Redo TAVR within tall-frame self-expanding valves can be challenging due to unfavorable coronary anatomy, and CT-based data in Asian patients with smaller aortic root dimensions remain limited.
Does the depth of simulated SAPIEN 3 implantation within a previously implanted Evolut valve affect geometric coronary constraints in Asian patients?
Observational (n=113)
No
Does the depth of simulated SAPIEN 3 implantation within a previously implanted Evolut valve affect geometric coronary constraints in Asian patients?
In Asian patients with Evolut valves, the risk of severe geometric coronary constraint during redo TAVR with SAPIEN 3 is highly dependent on the simulated implantation depth, with lower implantation depths significantly reducing the risk.
High S3 implantation was associated with severe geometric coronary constraint in most patients; this Level 5 observation leaves open optimal positioning for prospective trials.
Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) when implanting a second transcatheter valve within a tall-frame self-expanding valve can be challenging because of unfavorable coronary-related anatomy. However, computed tomography (CT)-based data in Asian patients with smaller aortic root dimensions remain limited.This study aimed to evaluate the CT-based geometric coronary constraints by simulating implantation of a balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) within a previously implanted self-expanding Evolut valve in Asian patients. Consecutive patients who underwent TAVR using Evolut at a single center between May 2021 and May 2023 and had post-procedural CT were analyzed. Virtual S3-in-Evolut implantation was simulated at three depths (node 4: low; node 5: intermediate; node 6: high). Geometric coronary constraint was assessed based on the relationship between the neo-skirt plane and coronary ostia and the valve-to-aorta distance. Among 113 patients, the distribution of geometric coronary constraint differed by simulated S3 implantation depth. With high S3 implantation (node 6), severe, intermediate, and low constraint were observed in 63.7%, 23.9%, and 12.4% of patients, respectively; with intermediate implantation (node 5), in 31.0%, 29.2%, and 39.8%; and with low implantation (node 4), in 3.5%, 16.8%, and 79.6%. In multivariable analysis, smaller sino-tubular junction diameter was independently associated with severe geometric coronary constraint.Geometric coronary constraints that may affect coronary access after redo TAVR with S3-in-Evolut configurations depend on the implantation depth of both the index Evolut and the simulated S3. However, the hemodynamic significance and clinical impact of these geometric findings require validation through flow studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ochiai et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Previous TAVR with Evolut valve (n=113). Virtual S3-in-Evolut implantation vs. Different implantation depths (node 4, 5, 6) was evaluated on Geometric coronary constraint based on the relationship between the neo-skirt plane and coronary ostia and the valve-to-aorta distance. Simulated S3-in-Evolut redo TAVR showed severe geometric coronary constraint in 63.7%, 31.0%, and 3.5% of Asian patients at high, intermediate, and low implantation depths, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: