Why the study?
TAVR durability may be limited by leaflet thrombosis, which is affected by hemodynamics dependent on implant positioning such as commissural alignment or misalignment.
Does commissural misalignment of TAVR prostheses increase the thrombogenic potential in an in vitro aortic root model?
Does commissural misalignment of TAVR prostheses increase the thrombogenic potential in an in vitro aortic root model?
Commissural misalignment during TAVR alters hemodynamics in the aortic root, potentially increasing the risk of leaflet thrombosis.
Commissural misalignment may alter post-TAVR aortic root flow; hypothesis-generating for leaflet thrombosis risk, prospective studies needed.
Due to excellent clinical results, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved to a treatment option for patients with low surgical risk, resulting in an increasing demand for durable heart valve prostheses. Durability of TAVR could be limited by leaflet thrombosis. Thrombus formation in the aortic root is mainly affected by the hemodynamic situation, which is dependent on the positioning of the implant. We investigated the flow field in the aortic root after TAVR implantation by means of particle image velocimetry. To quantify the influence of the implant-position with respect to an alignment or misalignment of the leaflet commissures on the thrombogenic potential, we used a transport equation for residence time (RT) to consider washout behavior. Furthermore, we introduced a shear effect criterion (SIE) to address platelet activation as a measure for a potential thrombus formation. Misaligned implantation of a TAVR resulted in a reversed direction of rotation of the occurring recirculation area. This led to fluid flow with comparable areas of increased relative blood RT (RT aligned : 97.6%, RT misaligned : 88.0%) and a smaller area of low shear load for the misaligned TAVR (SIE aligned : 57.7%, SIE misaligned : 3.70%) into the sinus region, indicating a higher potential for thrombus formation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borowski et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: