Why the study?
Does percutaneous aortic valve replacement with the CoreValve Revalving System improve echocardiographic parameters of aortic valve and left ventricular function in patients with aortic stenosis?
Does percutaneous aortic valve replacement with the CoreValve Revalving System improve echocardiographic parameters of aortic valve and left ventricular function in patients with aortic stenosis?
PAVR with the CoreValve system results in sustained improvements in aortic valve gradient and area without significant early changes in left ventricular ejection fraction or diastolic function.
PAVR improves valve hemodynamics early post-implant; extends observational CoreValve data but leaves open randomized confirmation of durability and outcomes.
AIMS: Although safety and feasibility studies have been published, there are few reports dedicated to the echocardiographic evaluation of patients following percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR). This report describes the early echocardiographic evaluation of patients undergoing PAVR with the CoreValve Revalving System. METHODS AND RESULTS: The population consisted of 33 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis who underwent successful PAVR. Echocardiograms were performed pre-treatment (123+/-110 days prior), post-treatment (6+/-2 days) and post-discharge (80+/-64 days). Aortic valve function and left ventricular dimensions, systolic and diastolic function were assessed pre- and post-implantation. The mean age was 81+/-7 years and the mean Logistic Euroscore was 20+/-12. Following PAVR, the mean transaortic valve gradient decreased (46+/-16 mmHg pre-treatment vs. 12+/-7 mmHg post-treatment vs. 9+/-5 mmHg post-discharge, p<0.001) and the mean effective orifice area increased (0.75+/-0.23 cm2 pre-treatment vs. 1.97+/-0.85 cm2 post-treatment vs. 1.72+/-0.45 cm2 post-discharge, p<0.001). There was no significant change in mean ejection fraction (41+/-12% pre-treatment vs. 46+/-15% post-treatment vs. 44+/-13% post-discharge, p=0.44). Approximately two-thirds of patients had no change in diastolic function at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Following implantation, there was a sustained decrease in aortic valve gradient and increase in aortic valve area. In addition, the mean ejection fraction did not change significantly and in the majority of patients, diastolic function was unchanged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaegere et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: