Video Experimental Relacionado
Updated: Jan 13, 2026

Improved Registration of 3D CT Angiography with X-ray Fluoroscopy for Image Fusion During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: June 3, 2018
Desalineación comisural tras implante de válvula aórtica transcatéter válvula en válvula
Matthias Raschpichler1, Johannes Rotta Detto Loria2, Vivek Patel3
1University Hospital of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Background:
Data on commissural misalignment (CMA) during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) for valve failure after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is scarce.
Aims:
To study the impact of CMA on clinical and hemodynamic outcomes following ViV-TAVI for failed SAVR.
Methods:
Data of patients who underwent ViV-TAVI for failed SAVR valves at two institutions (Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany; Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, USA) were retrospectively collected and compared regarding the existence of CMA. Outcomes of interest included Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3-based clinical endpoints, Computed Tomography-based hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), hemodynamic outcome, and mid-term all-cause mortality.
Results:
Of the 687 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI, post-procedural CT of sufficient quality to measure commissural alignment was available in 180 patients (47.8% females, mean age 78.0 years). Self-expanding TAVI valves were used in 49.2% of the cases. CMA was found in 35 individuals (19.4%) and was associated with reduced VARC-3-based technical success (80% vs. 93%, p = 0.03), driven by increased rates of coronary obstruction (17.1% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.03). The incidence of HALT was 31.7%, without differences in patients with and without CMA. VARC-3-based device success was 62.9%, driven by an incidence of residual mean valve gradient (≥ 20 mmHg) of 35.4%, without differences between groups. Midterm survival after a mean of 747 days was 84.6% and comparable between groups.
Conclusions:
For patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for failed SAVR, technical success is reduced for cases of CMA due to higher odds of coronary obstruction, without differences in mid-term survival.
Más Videos Relacionados
Videos de Conceptos Relacionados
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse I: Introduction
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests

