CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Clinical impact of PCSK9 inhibitor on stabilization and regression of lipid-rich coronary plaques: a near-infrared spectroscopy study Comparison of safety and periprocedural complications of transfemoral aortic valve replacement under local anaesthesia: minimalist versus complete Heart Team Impaired Retinal Microvascular Function Predicts Long-Term Adverse Events in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease Increased Risk of Valvular Heart Disease in Systemic Sclerosis: An Underrecognized Cardiac Complication From Detecting the Vulnerable Plaque to Managing the Vulnerable Patient Intravascular Ultrasound and Angioscopy Assessment of Coronary Plaque Components in Chronic Totally Occluded Lesions Coronary Access After TAVR Incidence and Outcomes of Surgical Bailout During TAVR : Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry Clinical Impact of Valvular Heart Disease in Elderly Patients Admitted for Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the Elderly-ACS 2 Study Longitudinal Change in Galectin-3 and Incident Cardiovascular Outcomes

Clinical TrialVolume 13, Issue 5, March 2020

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Prior Balloon Valvuloplasty Versus Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the DIRECTAVI Trial

F Leclercq, P Robert, M Akodad et al. Keywords: balloon aortic valvuloplasty vs TAVR; device success; direct implantation

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to evaluate device success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using new-generation balloon-expandable prostheses with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV).

 

BACKGROUND - Randomized studies are lacking comparing TAVR without BAV against the conventional technique of TAVR with BAV.

 

METHODS - DIRECTAVI (Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) was an open-label noninferiority study that randomized patients undergoing TAVR using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve with or without prior balloon valvuloplasty. The primary endpoint was the device success rate according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, which was evaluated using a 7% noninferiority margin. The secondary endpoint included procedural and 30-day adverse events.

 

RESULTS - Device success was recorded for 184 of 236 included patients (78.0%). The rate of device success in the direct implantation group (n = 97 [80.2%]) was noninferior to that in the BAV group (n = 87 [75.7%]) (mean difference 4.5%; 95% confidence interval: ?4.4% to 13.4%; p = 0.02 for noninferiority). No severe prosthesis-patient mismatch or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in any group. In the direct implantation group, 7 patients (5.8%) required BAV to cross the valve. Adverse events were related mainly to pacemaker implantation (20.9% in the BAV group vs. 19.0% in the direct implantation group; p = 0.70). No significant difference was found between the 2 strategies in duration of procedure, contrast volume, radiation exposure, or rate of post-dilatation.

 

CONCLUSIONS - Direct TAVR without prior BAV was noninferior to the conventional strategy using BAV with new-generation balloon-expandable valves, but without procedural simplification. BAV was needed to cross the valve in a few patients, suggesting a need for upstream selection on the basis of patient anatomy. (TAVI Without Balloon Predilatation [of the Aortic Valve] SAPIEN 3 [DIRECTAVI]; NCT02729519)