Safety and efficacy of valve repositioning during transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Lotus Valve System. Issue 1 (July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rashid, Hashrul N.Z.; Gooley, Robert; McCormick, Liam; Zaman, Sarah; Ramkumar, Satish; Jackson, Damon; Amiruddin, Ameera; Nasis, Arthur; Cameron, James; Meredith, Ian T.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiology. Volume 70:Issue 1(2017:Jul.)
• Page Start: 55
• Page End: 61
• Publication Date: 2017-07
• Subjects: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement -- Aortic stenosis -- Lotus valve -- Transcatheter aortic valve; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.11.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0914-5087

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of valve repositioning following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Lotus Valve System (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA). Introduction: TAVR is a well-established treatment for severe aortic stenosis. The Lotus Valve System is fully repositionable and retrievable. Valve repositioning has the potential to minimize TAVR-related complications caused by valve malposition; however, the effect on adverse event rates such as stroke is unknown. Methods: Consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the Lotus Valve System ( n = 125) were prospectively recruited. Patients who did not require valve repositioning (Group A) were compared to patients who required one or more valve repositions (Group B). The primary end-point was 30-day occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Secondary end-points included each component of the primary end-point, new pacemaker insertion, and procedural or 30-day major adverse events, defined according to VARC-2 definitions. Results: Valve repositioning was utilized in 60.8% (76/125) of patients including 17.1% (13/76) who required full valve resheathing. The most frequent indications for valve repositioning were altering the depth and angulation of initial implantation (69.7%), reducing paravalvular regurgitation (13.2%), and attempt to correct new or worsened heart block (7.9%). Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The primary end-point occurred in 12.2% and 6.6% of Group A and B, respectively ( p = 0.10). Thirty-day new pacemaker implantation was 34.1% and 18.8% in Group A and B, respectively ( p = 0.06). The secondary end-point measures were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion: Repositioning facilitated correct anatomical positioning of all devices leading to optimal prosthesis hemodynamics and a trend to lower pacemaker rate without increased risk of MACCE.