Paravalvular Leak Assessment After TAVR: Can You Please Ask the Echocardiographer to Get Out of the Catheterization Laboratory?

Quantitative Angiographic Assessment of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Implantation of the Venus A-valve: Comparison with Other Self-Expanding Valves and Impact of a Learning Curve in a Single Chinese Center

Objectives

We aimed to compare the quantitative angiographic aortic regurgitation (AR) into the left ventricular out flow tract (LVOT-AR) of five different types of transcatheter self-expanding valves and to investigate the impact of the learning curve on post-TAVR AR.

Background

Quantitative video densitometric aortography is an objective, accurate, and reproducible tool for assessment of AR following TAVR.

Methods and results

This retrospective academic core-lab analysis, analyzed 1150 consecutive cine aortograms performed immediately post-TAVR. Quantitative angiographic AR of post-procedural aortography in 181 consecutive patients, who underwent TAVR with the Venus A-valve in a single Chinese center, were compared to the results of Evolut Pro, Evolut R, CoreValve, (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) and Acurate Neo (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts, US) transcatheter heart valves (THVs), from a previously published pooled database. Among the 181 aortograms of patients treated with the Venus A-Valve, 113 (62.4%) were analyzable for quantitative assessment of AR. The mean LVOT-AR was 8.9% ± 10.0% with 14.2% of patients having moderate or severe AR in the Venus A-valve group. No significant difference in mean LVOT-AR was observed between Evolut Pro, Evolut R, Acurate Neo, and Venus A-valve. The incidence of LVOT-AR >17%, which correlates with echocardiographic derived ≥ moderate AR, with the Evolut Pro was lower than with the Venus A-valve (5.3% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.034), but was not different from the Evolut R (5.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.612), or the Acurate Neo (5.3% vs. 11.3% p = 0.16) systems. A landmark analysis after recruitment of the first half of patients treated with the Venus A valve (N = 56), showed a significantly lower mean LVOT-AR in the second half of the series (11.3% ± 11.9% vs. 6.5% ± 7.1%, p = 0.011). The incidence of LVOT-AR >17% in the latest 57 cases was also numerically lower (7.0% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.857) and compared favorably with the best in class of the self-expanding valves.

Conclusion

The Venus A-valve has comparable mean LVOT-AR to other self-expanding valves but has a higher rate of moderate or severe AR than the Evolut Pro THV. However, after completion of a learning phase, results improved and compared favorably with the best in class of the commercially available self-expanding valves. These findings should be confirmed in prospective randomized comparisons of AR between different THVs.