Reply to Durukan et al.

paravalvular defect width was 5 mm [3]. Although not mentioned in the article, the lateral diameter was 3 mm, and the circular length 16 mm, which was smaller than the waist circumference of the device. We think that the defect circumference should be a little bit smaller than the waist circumference of the device and the maximum length of the device should be up to the length of the defect. If a device with a larger waist circumference is chosen, it will fit the shape of the paravalvular defect perfectly with the help of its self-expanding property, while its length increases and both discs prevent embolization. The self-expandability, a slightly larger waist circumference, localized convergence at each disc and appropriate device length allow device fixation and conformism within the paravalvular anatomical defect, provide protection from embolization and prevent the occurrence of new paravalvular leakages under 3D-TEE and fluoroscopic guidance.