Differences in Pressure Recovery Between Balloon Expandable and Self-expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves.

Abstract

Pressure recovery downstream of the aortic valve constitutes an important factor affecting the calculation of pressure gradient (PG) across the valve and therefore the accuracy of the calculated aortic valve area. Some clinical studies hypothesized that stent and valve cusps design contribute to flow acceleration and Doppler-measured valve gradients across the balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. This study aims at elucidating the physical mechanisms behind pressure recovery variations between Edwards SAPIEN 3 and Medtronic Evolut TAVs through the measurements of sensitive and precise axial pressure profiles. A 23mm Edwards SAPIEN3 and a 26mm Medtronic Evolut were deployed in a pulse duplicator. A Millar catheter was used to record 50 cycles of pressure data along the centerline of the valve chamber upstream and downstream of the valve. The peak PG obtained with SAPIEN at vena contracta (VC) is 18.83 ± 0.75mmHg and after recovery, 9.56 ± 0.78mmHg. For Evolut at VC, peak PG is 18.25 ± 0.63mmHg and after recovery, 10.3 ± 0.57mmHg. The differences in peak PG at VC and at the recovery were statistically significant (p < 0.001). With SAPIEN 3 at VC, the mean PG obtained is 10.11 ± 0.63mmHg and after recovery 7.06 ± 0.46mmHg. For Evolut, mean PG at VC is 10.45 ± 0.67mmHg and after recovery 7.99 ± 0.61mmHg. The differences between the mean PG between the two valves was not statistically significant at VC (p = 0.71) but significant post-recovery (p < 0.00001). While gradients at the VC are higher with the SAPIEN 3, the net gradient after pressure recovery is significantly lower compared to Evolut TAV. Efficiency ofpressure recovery significantly depends on valve type due tostent interference with the recovering blood flow.