Anatomical morphology of the aortic valve in Chinese aortic stenosis patients and clinical results after downsize strategy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Abstract 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) mm3. 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.

[1]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. , 2021, European heart journal.

[2]  Howard K. Song,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-risk Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis. , 2020, JAMA cardiology.

[3]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology and Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. , 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Prognostic Value of N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Elderly Patients With Valvular Heart Disease. , 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  M. Mack,et al.  Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease , 2020, Circulation.

[6]  M. Leon,et al.  Reshaping bicuspid aortic valve stenosis with an hourglass‐shaped balloon for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A pilot study , 2020, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[7]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Contemporary Presentation and Management of Valvular Heart Disease: The EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease II Survey. , 2019, Circulation.

[8]  Yong Peng,et al.  Understanding the Interaction Between Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses and Supra-Annular Structures From Post-Implant Stent Geometry. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement with a Balloon‐Expandable Valve in Low‐Risk Patients , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Andrew S. Mugglin,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement with a Self‐Expanding Valve in Low‐Risk Patients , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  V. Falk,et al.  Clinical outcomes of the Lotus Valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: An analysis from the RESPOND study , 2019, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[12]  R. Lange,et al.  Bicuspid Aortic Valve Anatomy and Relationship With Devices: The BAVARD Multicenter Registry A European Picture of Contemporary Multidetector Computed Tomography Sizing for Bicuspid Valves , 2019, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[13]  D. Tchétché,et al.  Aortic valve anatomy and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[14]  Mirko Doss,et al.  Accuracy of device landing zone calcium volume measurement with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[15]  F. Gao,et al.  Supra‐annular structure assessment for self‐expanding transcatheter heart valve size selection in patients with bicuspid aortic valve , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[16]  Ruiyan Zhang,et al.  Severe Symptomatic Bicuspid and Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis in China: Characteristics and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with the Venus-A Valve , 2018 .

[17]  S. Schneider,et al.  Five-year follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for symptomatic aortic stenosis , 2017, Heart.

[18]  Andrew J Einstein,et al.  Practical determination of aortic valve calcium volume score on contrast-enhanced computed tomography prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement and impact on paravalvular regurgitation: Elucidating optimal threshold cutoffs. , 2017, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[19]  Andrew S. Mugglin,et al.  Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement in Intermediate‐Risk Patients , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis , 2016, The Lancet.

[21]  M. Mack,et al.  Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  D. Berman,et al.  A revised methodology for aortic-valvar complex calcium quantification for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. , 2014, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[23]  A. Witkowski,et al.  Comparison of one- and 12-month outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (results from a multicenter registry). , 2014, The American journal of cardiology.

[24]  Maurice Buchbinder,et al.  Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  Stuart J Pocock,et al.  Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  B. Carabello.  Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis in Patients Who Cannot Undergo Surgery , 2011, Current cardiology reports.

[27]  G. Latsios,et al.  Correlation of Device landing zone calcification and acute procedural success in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantations with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[28]  H. Sievers,et al.  A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. , 2007, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[29]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Computed Tomography Imaging in the Context of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)/Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.