Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 8, 2026
Studying Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling by Aortic Debanding in Rodents
Published on: July 14, 2021
Left ventricular reverse remodeling in percutaneous and surgical aortic bioprostheses: an echocardiographic study
Cristina Giannini1, Anna Sonia Petronio, Carmela Nardi
1Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Background:
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the definitive proven therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who have symptoms or decreased left ventricular (LV) function. The development of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers a viable and "less invasive" option for the treatment of patients with critical aortic stenosis at high risk with conventional approaches. The main objective of this study was the comparison of LV hemodynamic and structural modifications (reverse remodeling) between percutaneous and surgical approaches in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.
Methods:
Fifty-eight patients who underwent TAVI with the CoreValve bioprosthetic valve were compared with 58 patients with similar characteristics who underwent SAVR. Doppler echocardiographic data were obtained before the intervention, at discharge, and after 6-month to 12-month follow-up.
Results:
Mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge was lower (P<.003) in the TAVI group (10±5 mm Hg) compared with the SAVR group (14±5 mm Hg) and was confirmed at follow-up (10±4 vs 13±4 mm Hg, respectively, P<.001). Paravalvular leaks were more frequent in the TAVI group (trivial to mild, 69%; moderate, 14%) than in the SAVR group (trivial to mild, 30%; moderate, 0%) (P<.0001). The incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was significantly lower (P<.004) in the TAVI group (12%) compared with the SAVR group (36%). At follow-up, LV mass and LV mass indexed to height and to body surface area improved in both groups, with no significant difference. In patients with severe PPM, only the TAVI subgroup showed significant reductions in LV mass. LV ejection fraction improved at follow-up significantly only in TAVI patients compared with baseline values (from 50.2±9.6% to 54.8±7.3%, P<.0001).
Conclusions:
Hemodynamic performance after TAVI was shown to be superior to that after SAVR in terms of transprosthetic gradient, LV ejection fraction, and the prevention of severe PPM, but with a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation. Furthermore, LV reverse remodeling was observed in all patients in the absence of PPM, while the same remodeling occurred only in the TAVI subgroup when severe PPM was present.
