Incidence, Predictor, and Clinical Outcomes of Multiple Resheathing With Self‐Expanding Valves During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Background No study has evaluated the impact of the additional manipulation demanded by multiple resheathing (MR) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with repositionable self‐expanding valves. Methods and Results This study included a real‐world, multicenter registry involv...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Wiley
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/2b830aadc64c4c25a7b1829b1388f242 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background No study has evaluated the impact of the additional manipulation demanded by multiple resheathing (MR) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with repositionable self‐expanding valves. Methods and Results This study included a real‐world, multicenter registry involving 16 centers from Canada, Germany, Latin America, and Spain. All consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Evolut R, Evolut PRO, and Portico valves were included. Patients were divided according to the number of resheathing: no resheathing, single resheathing (SR), and MR. The primary end point was device success. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, early safety events, and 1‐year mortality. In 1026 patients, the proportion who required SR and MR was 23.9% and 9.3%, respectively. MR was predicted by the use of Portico and moderate/severe aortic regurgitation at baseline (both with P<0.01). Patients undergoing MR had less device success (no resheathing=89.9%, SR=89.8%, and MR=80%; P=0.01), driven by more need for a second prosthesis and device embolization. At 30 days, there were no differences in safety events. At 1 year, more deaths occurred with MR (no resheathing=10.5%, SR=8.0%, and MR=18.8%; P=0.014). After adjusting for baseline differences and center experience by annual volume, MR associated with less device success (odds ratio, 0.42; P=0.003) and increased 1‐year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.06; P=0.01). When including only the Evolut R/PRO cases (N=837), MR continued to have less device success (P<0.001) and a trend toward increased mortality (P=0.05). Conclusions Repositioning a self‐expanding valve is used in a third of patients, being multiple in ≈10%. MR, but not SR, was associated with more device failure and higher 1‐year mortality, regardless of the type of valve implanted. |
|---|