English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives  To compare the quantitative angiographic aortic regurgitation (AR) of six self-expanding valves after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).    Background  Quantitative videodensitometric aortography (LVOT-AR) is an accurate and reproducible tool for assessment of AR following TAVR.    Methods  This is a retrospective central core-lab analysis of 1,257 consecutive cine aortograms performed post-TAVR. The study included 107 final aortograms of consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with first-generation VitaFlow in four Chinese centers and 1,150 aortograms with five other transcatheter aortic valves (Evolut Pro, Evolut R, CoreValve, Venus A-Valve, and Acurate Neo). LVOT-AR analyses of these five valves were retrieved from a previously published pooled database.    Results  Among 172 aortograms of patients treated with VitaFlow, 107 final aortograms (62.2%) were analyzable by LVOT-AR. In this first in man eight cases necessitated a procedural valve in valve due to inappropriate TAVR positioning and severe aortic paravalvular regurgitation. In the VitaFlow group, the mean LVOT-AR of the intermediate aortograms was 7.3 ± 7.8% and the incidence of LVOT-AR &amp;gt;17% was 8.6%. The mean LVOT-AR of the final aortogram was 6.1 ± 6.4% in the VitaFlow group, followed by Evolut Pro (7.3 ± 6.5%), Evolut R (7.9 ± 7.4%), Venus A-valve (8.9 ± 10.0%), Acurate Neo (9.6 ± 9.2%), and lastly CoreValve (13.7 ± 10.7%) (analysis of variance  p  &amp;lt; 0.001). Post hoc 2-by-2 testing showed that CoreValve had significantly higher LVOT-AR compared with each of the other five THVs. No statistical difference in LVOT-AR was observed between VitaFlow, Evolut Pro, Evolut R, Acurate Neo, and Venus A-valves. The VitaFlow system had the lowest proportion of patients with LVOT-AR &amp;gt;17% (4.7%) (AR after the final aortograms), followed by Evolut Pro (5.3%), Evolut R (8.8%), Acurate Neo (11.3%), Venus A-valve (14.2%), and CoreValve (30.1%) (chi-square  p  &amp;lt; 0.001).    Conclusion  Compared to other commercially available self-expanding valves, VitaFlow seems to have a low degree of AR and a low proportion of patients with ≥moderate/severe AR as assessed by quantitative videodensitometric angiography. Once the learning phase is completed, comparisons of AR between different transcatheter heart valves should be attempted in a prospective randomized trial.

frontiers in cardiovascular medicine

Comparative Quantitative Aortographic Assessment of Regurgitation in Patients Treated With VitaFlow Transcatheter Heart Valve vs. Other Self-Expanding Systems