CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经导管主动脉瓣置换

Abstract

Recommended Article

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients Comparison of 1-Year Pre- And Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Hospitalization Rates: A Population-Based Cohort Study Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease Impact of myocardial fibrosis on left ventricular remodelling, recovery, and outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in different haemodynamic subtypes of severe aortic stenosis Frailty in Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: Evolving Concepts in Timing of Valve Replacement Leaflet immobility and thrombosis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Clinical TrialVolume 13, Issue 5, March 2020

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Prior Balloon Valvuloplasty Versus Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the DIRECTAVI Trial

F Leclercq, P Robert, M Akodad et al. Keywords: balloon aortic valvuloplasty vs TAVR; device success; direct implantation

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to evaluate device success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using new-generation balloon-expandable prostheses with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV).

 

BACKGROUND - Randomized studies are lacking comparing TAVR without BAV against the conventional technique of TAVR with BAV.

 

METHODS - DIRECTAVI (Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) was an open-label noninferiority study that randomized patients undergoing TAVR using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve with or without prior balloon valvuloplasty. The primary endpoint was the device success rate according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, which was evaluated using a 7% noninferiority margin. The secondary endpoint included procedural and 30-day adverse events.

 

RESULTS - Device success was recorded for 184 of 236 included patients (78.0%). The rate of device success in the direct implantation group (n = 97 [80.2%]) was noninferior to that in the BAV group (n = 87 [75.7%]) (mean difference 4.5%; 95% confidence interval: ?4.4% to 13.4%; p = 0.02 for noninferiority). No severe prosthesis-patient mismatch or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in any group. In the direct implantation group, 7 patients (5.8%) required BAV to cross the valve. Adverse events were related mainly to pacemaker implantation (20.9% in the BAV group vs. 19.0% in the direct implantation group; p = 0.70). No significant difference was found between the 2 strategies in duration of procedure, contrast volume, radiation exposure, or rate of post-dilatation.

 

CONCLUSIONS - Direct TAVR without prior BAV was noninferior to the conventional strategy using BAV with new-generation balloon-expandable valves, but without procedural simplification. BAV was needed to cross the valve in a few patients, suggesting a need for upstream selection on the basis of patient anatomy. (TAVI Without Balloon Predilatation [of the Aortic Valve] SAPIEN 3 [DIRECTAVI]; NCT02729519)