Open AccessCardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of 1st generation CoreValve and 2nd generation Lotus valves
Author(s) -
Musa Tarique Al,
Uddin Akhlaque,
Dobson Laura E.,
Swoboda Peter P.,
Garg Pankaj,
Foley James R. J.,
Malkin Christopher,
Plein Sven,
Blackman Daniel J.,
Greenwood John P.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of interventional cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.764
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1540-8183
pISSN - 0896-4327
DOI - 10.1111/joic.12512
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , magnetic resonance imaging , hemodynamics , regurgitation (circulation) , valve replacement , cardiac magnetic resonance , aortic valve , radiology , stenosis
Objectives We sought to compare using serial CMR, the quantity of AR and associated valve hemodynamics, following the first‐generation CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and the second‐generation Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA). Background Aortic regurgitation (AR) following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) confers a worse prognosis and can be accurately quantified using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Second generation valves have been specifically designed to reduce paravalvular AR and improve clinical outcomes. Methods Fifty‐one patients (79.0 ± 7.7 years, 57% male) were recruited and imaged at three time points: immediately pre‐ and post‐TAVR, and at 6 months. Results CMR‐derived AR fraction immediately post‐TAVR was greater in the CoreValve compared to Lotus group (11.7 ± 8.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.4%, P = 0.001), as was the frequency of ≥moderate AR (9/24 (37.5%) versus 0/27, P < 0.001). However, at 6 months AR fraction had improved significantly in the CoreValve group such that the two valve designs were comparable (6.4 ± 5.0 vs 5.6 ± 5.3%, P = 0.623), with no patient in either group having ≥moderate AR. The residual peak pressure gradient immediately following TAVR was significantly lower with CoreValve compared to Lotus (14.1 ± 5.6 vs 25.4 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.001), but again by 6 months the two valve designs were comparable (16.5 ± 9.4 vs 19.7 ± 10.5 mmHg, P = 0.332). There was no difference in the degree of LV reverse remodeling between the two valves at 6 months. Conclusion Immediately post‐TAVR, there was significantly less AR but a higher residual peak pressure gradient with the Lotus valve compared to CoreValve. However, at 6 months both devices had comparable valve hemodynamics and LV reverse remodeling.