Presence of Moderate or Severe Regurgitation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant with the Cusp Overlap Strategy

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: The aim of this study is to whether higher transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with self-expandable valves using the right and left cusp overlap strategy (Cusp Overlap, COVL) is associated with a lower incidence of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR), compared with the conventional strategy (CON). Methods: A total of 206 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI with self-expandable valves between August 2019 and May2022 were analyzed. The CON technique was used in the first 101 patients (49%) and COVL was used in 105 (51%). The primary endpoint (PEP) was the presence of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation at 30 days. Results: There were no clinical differences between the groups in terms of mean age, sex or comorbidities, except for a trend towards more patients with diabetes and previous percutaneous coronary intervention in the COVL group. The STS score was greater in the COVL group (6.9 ± 2.2 vs. 5.8 ± 2.4 in the CON group; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the PEP at 30 days with 2% incidence of moderate PVR in the CON group and 0.9% in the COVL group, and none of them presented severe PVR. There were no differences in mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary artery obstruction, stroke, major bleeding or vascular complications. The need for permanent pacemaker was lower with the COVL strategy (6.7% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.01) and a new left bundle branch block occurred in 5.7% vs. 12.9% (p = 0.07). Conclusions: In this single-center series, the strategy of high transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the COVL strategy showed no difference in the presence of moderate or severe regurgitation compared with the conventional strategy, with no differences in complications, and was associated with a lower need for definitive pacemaker and with a trend towards lower incidence of left bundle branch block at 30 days.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.