TY - JOUR

T1 - Coronary Access Following Redo TAVR

T2 - Impact of THV Design, Implant Technique, and Cell Misalignment

AU - Meier, David

AU - Akodad, Mariama

AU - Landes, Uri

AU - Barlow, Aaron M.

AU - Chatfield, Andrew G.

AU - Lai, Althea

AU - Tzimas, Georgios

AU - Tang, Gilbert H.L.

AU - Puehler, Thomas

AU - Lutter, Georg

AU - Leipsic, Jonathon A.

AU - Søndergaard, Lars

AU - Wood, David A.

AU - Webb, John G.

AU - Sellers, Stephanie L.

AU - Sathananthan, Janarthanan

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Background: The implications and potential challenges of coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the impact of different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs, neoskirt height, implant technique, and cell misalignment on coronary access after redo TAVR. Methods: Different THV designs (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences LLC], Evolut Pro [Medtronic], ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific Corporation], and Portico [Abbott Structural Heart]) and sizes were implanted inside Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences LLC) and Evolut R (Medtronic) THVs, which were modeled as the “failed” THVs, at different implant depths. Valve combinations underwent micro–computed tomography to determine the neoskirt height and dimensions of the lowest accessible cell for potential coronary access. This was compared with dimensions of 6-F/7-F/8-F coronary guiding catheters. Results: Redo TAVR combinations resulted in a wide range of neoskirt heights (15.4-31.6 mm) and a variable diameter of the lowest accessible cell (1.9-21.8 mm). An ACURATE neo implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the largest accessible cells, whereas a Portico implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the lowest neoskirt heights. The smallest accessible cell was observed in the Evolut Pro–in–Evolut R configuration with higher neoskirt heights. Redo TAVR in a tall frame valve with supra-annular leaflets caused a taller neoskirt height. In Evolut-in-Evolut combinations, misalignment of the cells of the 2 THVs reduced the cell area by 30% to 50% compared with an aligned configuration. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that different redo TAVR combinations are not equivalent in terms of future coronary access. Redo TAVR using a tall frame valve in a failed tall frame valve and misaligned cells may lead to potentially challenging coronary access.

AB - Background: The implications and potential challenges of coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the impact of different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs, neoskirt height, implant technique, and cell misalignment on coronary access after redo TAVR. Methods: Different THV designs (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences LLC], Evolut Pro [Medtronic], ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific Corporation], and Portico [Abbott Structural Heart]) and sizes were implanted inside Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences LLC) and Evolut R (Medtronic) THVs, which were modeled as the “failed” THVs, at different implant depths. Valve combinations underwent micro–computed tomography to determine the neoskirt height and dimensions of the lowest accessible cell for potential coronary access. This was compared with dimensions of 6-F/7-F/8-F coronary guiding catheters. Results: Redo TAVR combinations resulted in a wide range of neoskirt heights (15.4-31.6 mm) and a variable diameter of the lowest accessible cell (1.9-21.8 mm). An ACURATE neo implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the largest accessible cells, whereas a Portico implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the lowest neoskirt heights. The smallest accessible cell was observed in the Evolut Pro–in–Evolut R configuration with higher neoskirt heights. Redo TAVR in a tall frame valve with supra-annular leaflets caused a taller neoskirt height. In Evolut-in-Evolut combinations, misalignment of the cells of the 2 THVs reduced the cell area by 30% to 50% compared with an aligned configuration. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that different redo TAVR combinations are not equivalent in terms of future coronary access. Redo TAVR using a tall frame valve in a failed tall frame valve and misaligned cells may lead to potentially challenging coronary access.

KW - coronary access

KW - redo-TAVR

KW - TAVR

KW - valve-in-valve

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.05.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.05.005

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 35926919

AN - SCOPUS:85135070067

VL - 15

SP - 1519

EP - 1531

JO - J A C C: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - J A C C: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1936-8798

IS - 15

ER -