scholarly journals Numerical models for assessing the risk of leaflet thrombosis post-transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 201838
Author(s):  
Romina Plitman Mayo ◽  
Halit Yaakobovich ◽  
Ariel Finkelstein ◽  
Shawn C. Shadden ◽  
Gil Marom

Leaflet thrombosis has been suggested as the reason for the reduced leaflet motion in cases of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening of bioprosthetic aortic valves. This work aimed to estimate the risk of leaflet thrombosis in two post-valve-in-valve (ViV) configurations, using five different numerical approaches. Realistic ViV configurations were calculated by modelling the deployments of the latest version of transcatheter aortic valve devices (Medtronic Evolut PRO, Edwards SAPIEN 3) in the surgical Sorin Mitroflow. Computational fluid dynamics simulations of blood flow followed the dry models. Lagrangian and Eulerian measures of near-wall stagnation were implemented by particle and concentration tracking, respectively, to estimate the thrombogenicity and to predict the risk locations. Most of the numerical approaches indicate a higher leaflet thrombosis risk in the Edwards SAPIEN 3 device because of its intra-annular implantation. The Eulerian approaches estimated high-risk locations in agreement with the wall sheer stress (WSS) separation points. On the other hand, the Lagrangian approaches predicted high-risk locations at the proximal regions of the leaflets matching the low WSS magnitude regions of both transcatheter aortic valve implantation models and reported clinical and experimental data. The proposed methods can help optimizing future designs of transcatheter aortic valves with minimal thrombotic risks.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (29) ◽  
pp. 2747-2755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer A Hirji ◽  
Edward D Percy ◽  
Cheryl K Zogg ◽  
Alexandra Malarczyk ◽  
Morgan T Harloff ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. Methods and results We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. Conclusion In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. 672-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Fabris ◽  
Andrea Perkan ◽  
Elisabetta Rauber ◽  
Giancarlo Vitrella ◽  
Roberto Sallusti ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document