CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease Valve‐in‐Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve‐in‐Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3‐Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1‐Year Outcome Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The new standard for surgeons and cardiologists using transfemoral access? Determinants and Impact of Heart Failure Readmission Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Prognostic implications of baseline 6‐min walk test performance in intermediate risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement Reduced Leaflet Motion after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement Transcatheter Laceration of Aortic Leaflets to Prevent Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Concept to First-in-Human

Clinical TrialVolume 12, Issue 24, December 2019

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Benjamin Faurie, Géraud Souteyrand, the EASY TAVI Investigators. Keywords: left ventricular pacing; left ventricular stimulation; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES -  This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) stimulation via a guidewire-reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV) stimulation.

 

BACKGROUND -  Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

 

METHODS -  This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with a SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were allocated to LV or RV stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days.

 

RESULTS -  Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomized, but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analyzed in the LV (n = 151) or RV (n = 152) stimulation groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV stimulation group (48.4 ± 16.9 min vs. 55.6 ± 26.9 min; p = 0.0013), with a difference of 0.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.20 to 0.05) in the log-transformed procedure duration (p = 0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) versus 128 (87.1%) (p = 0.60). Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) versus 151 (99.3%) patients (p = 0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVR (major adverse cardiovascular event-transcatheter aortic valve replacement) occurred in 21 (13.9%) versus 26 (17.1%) patients (p = 0.44); fluoroscopy time (min) was lower in the LV stimulation group (13.48 ± 5.98 vs. 14.60 ± 5.59; p = 0.02), as was cost (18,807 ± 1,318 vs. 19,437 ± 2,318; p = 0.001).

 

CONCLUSIONS - Compared with RV stimulation, LV stimulation during TAVR was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety. (Direct Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guide-wire in TAVR [EASY TAVI]; NCT02781896)