Key result
TAVR downsizing strategy provides non-inferior device success compared to annular sizing.
Why the study?
To describe aortic valve morphology in Chinese patients undergoing TAVR for symptomatic severe AS, and evaluate the impact of sizing strategies on procedural outcomes.
Does a downsize strategy improve device success rate compared to an annular sizing strategy in Chinese patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis?
Cohort (n=293)
Does a downsize strategy improve device success rate compared to an annular sizing strategy in Chinese patients undergoing TAVR for severe aortic stenosis?
In Chinese patients undergoing TAVR, a downsize strategy for complex morphology provides non-inferior device success and hemodynamic performance compared to standard annular sizing.
May support downsize strategy in complex Chinese TAVR cases; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to describe the aortic valve morphology in Chinese patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), and the impact of sizing strategies and related procedural outcomes. METHODS: Patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR were consecutively enrolled from 2012 to 2019. The anatomy and morphology of the aortic root were assessed. "Downsize" strategy was preformed when patients had complex morphology. The clinical outcomes of patients who performed downsize strategy were compared with those received annular sizing strategy. The primary outcome was device success rate, and secondary outcomes included Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 clinical outcomes variables based on 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were enrolled. Among them, 95 patients (32.4%) had bicuspid aortic valve. The calcium volume (Hounsfield Unit-850) of aortic root was 449.90 (243.15-782.15) mm 3 . Calcium is distributed mostly on the leaflet level. Downsize strategy was performed in 204 patients (69.6%). Compared with the patients who performed annular sizing strategy, those received downsize strategy achieved a similar device success rate (82.0% [73] vs . 83.3% [170], P = 0.79). Aortic valve gradients (downsize strategy group vs . annular sizing group, 11.28 mmHg vs. 11.88 mmHg, P = 0.64) and percentages of patients with moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation 2.0% (4/204) vs . 4.5% (4/89), P = 0.21) were similar in the two groups at 30 days after TAVR. These echocardiographic results were sustainable for one year. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese TAVR patients have more prevalent bicuspid morphology and large calcium volume of aortic root. Calcium is distributed mostly on the leaflet level. Compare with annular sizing strategy, downsize strategy provided a non-inferior device success rate and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic performance in self-expanding TAVR procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niu et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (n=293). Downsize strategy vs. Annular sizing strategy was evaluated on device success rate (p=0.79). A downsize strategy for TAVR provided a non-inferior device success rate compared to an annular sizing strategy (83.3% vs 82.0%, P=0.79).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: