Coronary Access and PCI after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Different Self-Expanding Platforms in Failed Surgical Valves

Abstract

BackgroundCoronary access (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) might be challenging after valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with supra-annular self-expanding valves (SS-TAVs) in surgical aortic valves (SAVs). Our study aim was to compare feasibility, predictors, and techniques of CA and PCI following ViV-TAVR with ACURATE neo2 (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and Evolut PRO+ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). MethodsFifteen computed tomography (CT)-based patient-specific aortic models were 3-dimensionally (3D) printed and implanted with specific SAVs and with the 2 SS-TAVs with commissural alignment. Two operators attempted CA (n = 120) and PCI (n = 120) of each coronary artery in a pulsatile-flow-simulator, under real catheterization laboratory conditions. The primary endpoints were the rate of successful CA and PCI. Outcomes with different SS-TAVs were directly compared. An internally mounted borescope camera was used to assess procedures. CT of the models was obtained. ResultsACURATE neo2 showed significantly higher rates of successful CA (96.7% vs 75%, P = 0.001) and PCI (98.3% vs 85%, P = 0.008) and was associated with a shorter procedural time compared with Evolut PRO+. Independent predictors of unsuccessful CA and PCI were smaller SAV size and Evolut PRO+. The advantage of ACURATE neo2 was mediated by a larger valve-to-anatomy distance at the top of the leaflet plane (11.3 mm vs 4.8 mm), facilitating more often an external cannulation approach for both CA (36.7% vs 15%, P < 0.001) and PCI (36.7% vs 21.7%, P = 0.013). ConclusionsThe rate of successful CA and PCI following ViV-TAVR was higher with ACURATE neo2 compared with Evolut PRO+. The differences in SS-TAVs design affected the cannulation approach and subsequent procedural outcomes.