Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Failure
2015; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 8; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circinterventions.115.002531
ISSN1941-7632
AutoresDarren Mylotte, Nicolò Piazza,
Tópico(s)Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
ResumoHomeCirculation: Cardiovascular InterventionsVol. 8, No. 4Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Failure Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBTranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement FailureDéjà vu ou Jamais vu? Darren Mylotte, MB BCh, MD and Nicolo Piazza, MD, PhD Darren MylotteDarren Mylotte From the Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland (D.M.); Department of Interventional Cardiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (N.P.); and Department of Cardiac Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munich, Germany (N.P.). and Nicolo PiazzaNicolo Piazza From the Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland (D.M.); Department of Interventional Cardiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (N.P.); and Department of Cardiac Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munich, Germany (N.P.). Originally published14 Apr 2015https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002531Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015;8:e002531The past half decade has seen transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) emerge as the standard of care for inoperable and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: randomized data have demonstrated reduced mortality with TAVR compared with medical therapy or surgery in these respective situations.1,2 Accordingly, recent research efforts have reorientated from establishing the short-term safety and efficacy of TAVR to optimizing patient outcomes and assessment of transcatheter heart valve (THV) durability. Five distinct causes of THV failure have been identified3: 3 are synonymous with surgical valve failure (structural valve dysfunction; prosthetic valve endocarditis [PVE]; and thrombosis) and 2 are unique to transcatheter valves (late migration; and compression). The limited information available on the incidence of these events and resultant uncertainty of THV durability are among the most significant impediments to widespread adoption of THV technology. Anecdotal experience and, more importantly, an ever-increasing quantity of published data suggest however that acute catastrophic failures are not characteristic of THVs.4,5 History has a tendency to repeat itself, and it is notable that a similar impasse relating to the adoption of surgical bioprosthetic valves played out almost 3 decades ago. On this subject, the British surgeon Dr Donald Ross provided the following commentary in 1982:Undoubtedly valve durability emerges as the most persistent criticism of biological valves. However, we have come to recognize that failure or degeneration in a biologic valve is a slowly progressive process. This means that there is adequate warning and plenty of time for a safe, planned second operation. The message I am trying to deliver is that we should not be deflected by the mechanical valve proponents into believing that valve durability is the key factor keeping patients alive. The fact that the valve is fine and unmarked, after the patient is dead, is of little interest to anyone but the manufacturers. It is imperative that we remember that valve safety ranks more importantly than durability when related to the clinical scene.6See Article by Latib et alSee Article by Leetmaa et alSee Article by Olsen et alSurgical bioprosthetic heart valve thrombosis is a well-recognized, but uncommon, prosthesis failure mode. The risk of surgical bioprosthetic thrombosis is greatest in the early postoperative period,7 and the reported incidence ranges from 0.5% to 2.3% per patient year.8,9 These rates are probably underestimated, as long-term systematic echocardiographic follow-up of surgical bioprostheses had not, somewhat surprisingly, been performed until the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve Cohort 1A (PARTNER 1A) trial.4 The variety of clinical presentations of bioprosthetic thrombosis (valve failure, stroke, systemic embolization, and infective endocarditis) further complicates efforts to determine the true rate of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis. Although disparate thrombosis rates among various surgical bioprostheses have not been reported, several patient factors have been associated with increased valve thrombosis: atrial fibrillation, left ventricular dysfunction, prior thromboembolism, and hypercoagulable conditions.10To date, THV thrombosis has been rarely reported in the literature. A recent systematic review of TAVR failure identified 10 published reports, comprising only 15 individual cases.3 No cases were reported in the PARTNER trials,4,5 and only a single case (0.8%) was reported among the 130 TAVI recipients in the PARTNER EU trial.11 There remain, however, several theoretical reasons that TAVR thrombosis could be observed more frequently than in historical surgical series3: (1) TAVR patients may be more likely to have coexisting prothrombotic conditions (eg, cancer), (2) a metallic THV frame could provide a nidüs for thrombosis, (3) incomplete THV expansion creates leaflet folds and potential recesses for thrombus formation, (4) incomplete THV apposition to the aorta can delay endothelialization, and (5) native leaflet overhang and the tall sealing skirts can create areas of diminished blood flow and stagnation in either the bioprosthetic valve cusps or the native sinuses, respectively. Two important studies published in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions report on THV thrombosis and add important insight to our understanding of this key topic.12,13Latib et al12 report a multicenter experience of 26 cases of THV thrombosis among 4266 patients treated in 12 centers over almost 7 years. The overall incidence of THV thrombosis was 0.61%: 0.71% for the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and 0.41 for the Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). The median time to diagnosis was 181 days (interquartile range [IQR], 45–313; range, 3–735), and most patients presented with progressive dyspnea and increasing echocardiographic transvalvular gradients. Gratifyingly, oral anticoagulation resulted in resolution of symptoms and adverse echocardiographic findings in all treated patients, whereas the few patients treated surgically also had favorable outcomes. This is the largest study to date to estimate an incident rate of THV thrombosis and provide a description of the clinical course of this condition. The risk of THV thrombosis is, however, an ongoing or continuous hazard, and thus a linearized event rate would have provided a useful comparator for surgical valve thrombosis and the development of TAVR-specific objective performance criteria. It is also important to consider the design limitations of such a voluntary registry, and it is anticipated that the risk of THV thrombosis is significantly underestimated in this population. Moreover, the small number of incident cases precludes detailed analysis on the impact of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, prosthesis type, and patient/procedural factors on the incidence of THV thrombosis.In this same issue, Leetmaa et al13 report a 4% incidence of THV thrombosis at 3 months among 140 consecutive Edwards Sapien valve implants at their center. Crucially, these diagnoses were established by planned computed tomography, and 4 of 5 patients had no clinical or echocardiographic evidence of THV dysfunction. The computed tomographic appearance was similar to that previously reported with echocardiography: leaflet thickening and restriction. These data make for uncomfortable reading and lend further credence to the belief that bioprosthetic thrombosis is underdiagnosed. Indeed, the findings of Leetmaa et al raise important questions relating to the definition, classification, and diagnosis of bioprosthetic thrombosis: (1) Is echocardiography insensitive to early THV thrombosis? (2) In what circumstances should computed tomography be considered? (3) What is the clinical course of asymptomatic nonobstructive THV thrombosis? (4) What is the real contribution of THV thrombosis to post-TAVR stroke? (5) What time points should patients undergo routine valve imaging follow-up? Given the low rates of clinically apparent THV thrombosis, routine postimplantation computed tomography is hardly justifiable in the asymptomatic patient, but should probably be considered in patients with echocardiographic evidence of THV dysfunction or where cardiac embolism is suspected, irrespective of the echocardiographic findings.The optimal antithrombotic and antiplatelet strategies after TAVR have not yet been defined. Current extreme- and high-operative risk TAVR recipients are at increased risk of both bleeding and stroke, although the magnitude of this hazard will diminish in lower risk patient populations. The dearth of published trials and hence clear evidence-based practice guidelines on the subject of antithrombotic therapy in TAVR have led to the adoption of heterogeneous antiplatelet and anticoagulant regimens.14,15 A Dutch TAVR survey reported the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 3 months in 69%, 6 months in 23%, and 1 month in 8% of centers.16 Where oral anticoagulation was indicated (eg, atrial fibrillation), concomitant clopidogrel was prescribed in 64%, aspirin in 29%, and no antiplatelet therapy in 7%. A recent meta-analysis suggested clinical equipoise in the incidence of stroke or myocardial infarction at 30 days between aspirin monotherapy and DAPT after TAVR.17 Although the studies included were small with limited follow-up, it was not surprising to note that DAPT was associated with more bleeding. It is axiomatic that larger studies with longer follow-up are required to better understand the impact of various post-TAVR antithrombotic regimens on clinical outcomes. Thankfully, 3 such comparative outcome trials are already recruiting: (1) the Aspirin Versus Aspirin+ClopidogRel Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (ARTE) trial (NCT01559298) will compare aspirin monotherapy with 3 months of DAPT; (2) the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Oral Anticoagulation for a Short Time to Prevent Cerebral Embolism After TAVI (AUREA) trial (NCT01642134) will compare the efficacy of 3 months of DAPT with oral anticoagulation on cerebral thromboembolism, as assessed using magnetic resonance imaging; (3) finally, the Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (POPular-TAVI) trial (NCT02247128) will compare 3 treatment strategies: (1) aspirin monotherapy; (2) DAPT for 3 months; and (3) clopidogrel with oral anticoagulation.Prosthetic valve endocarditis is another important cause of bioprosthetic valve failure. Surgical series report incidences of PVE between 0.3 and 1.2% per patient year, with associated mortality rates of up to 38% for early-PVE and 25% for late-PVE.18–20 Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation has been associated with a relatively high annualized incidence rate (2.1%) of PVE.21 Thus, it is plausible that a higher incidence of PVE may occur with TAVR than with historical surgical series. There are several potential reasons for this3: (1) the advanced age and constellation of comorbid illnesses in TAVR cohorts; (2) comparatively less sterility in many catheterization laboratories compared with operating theatres; (3) higher incidence of paravalvular leak and associated paravalvular turbulent blood flow; (4) the requirement to remove, resheath, and reimplant a malpositioned THV; (5) and low implantation of a THV resulting in interaction with the anterior mitral valve leaflet. To date, reported rates of TAVR-related PVE range from 0.6% to 3.4%.22,23Also in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, Olsen et al24 report 18 cases of PVE after CoreValve implantation, among their large single-center experience of 509 CoreValve procedures, with a median follow-up of 1.4 years (IQR, 0.5–2.5 years). PVE occurred most commonly in the first year after TAVR (3.1% [confidence interval, 1.4%–4.8%]): ≈1/3 within 30 days, 1/3 within 1 year, and 1/3 after 1 year. The annual linearized incidence rate was 2.1% per patient year (confidence interval, 1.2–3.3%). All but 1 patient was treated with intravenous antibiotics, and PVE-associated mortality was 22%. Predictors of PVE identified on multivariable analysis included low implant position, (hazard ratio, 2.8 [1.1–7.2]), ≥grade 2 paravalvular regurgitation (hazard ratio, 4.0[1.5–11]), THV-in-THV implantation (hazard ratio, 5.2 [1.5–18]), and vascular complications (hazard ratio, 3.8 [1.5–9.8]). These data add significantly to our knowledge of TAVR-related PVE and indeed suggest that technical factors relating to TAVR implantation may be associated with a higher incidence of PVE. This underscores the need for surgical-level sterility, the importance of achieving an optimal implantation, and adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis protocols during the index procedure and during follow-up. These results may not be applicable to other TAVR devices, although they do suggest that newer generation TAVR systems with sealing skirts to reduce paravalvular leak and/or are repositionable have the potential to reduce the incidence of TAVR-related PVE.TAVR research is approaching an important crossroads. The short-term safety and efficacy of THV technology have been established, but the long-term durability and factors threaten that longevity now requires detailed exploration. Optimizing patient outcomes for the decades that follow a THV implantation is now required, particularly as we move to treat younger and lower risk patients. This road has been travelled before, by the early champions of surgical bioprosthetic heart valves, although the level of rigor and scrutiny that will accompany this journey will be unprecedented. The important studies of Latib, Leetmaa, and Olsen represent small steps in the right direction.DisclosuresDr Piazza is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Mylotte reports no conflicts.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Correspondence to Nicolo Piazza, MD, PhD, Department of Interventional Cardiology, McGill University Health Centre, 687 Pine Ave W, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1A1, Canada. E-mail [email protected]References1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Fontana GP, Makkar RR, Brown DL, Block PC, Guyton RA, Pichard AD, Bavaria JE, Herrmann HC, Douglas PS, Petersen JL, Akin JJ, Anderson WN, Wang D, Pocock S; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery.N Engl J Med. 2010; 363:1597–1607. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008232.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, Yakubov SJ, Coselli JS, Deeb GM, Gleason TG, Buchbinder M, Hermiller J, Kleiman NS, Chetcuti S, Heiser J, Merhi W, Zorn G, Tadros P, Robinson N, Petrossian G, Hughes GC, Harrison JK, Conte J, Maini B, Mumtaz M, Chenoweth S, Oh JK; U.S. CoreValve Clinical Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1790–1798. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1400590.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Mylotte D, Andalib A, Theriault-Lauzier P, Dorfmeister M, Girgis M, Alharbi W, Chetrit M, Galatas C, Mamane S, Sebag I, Buithieu J, Bilodeau L, de Varennes B, Lachapelle K, Lange R, Martucci G, Virmani R, Piazza N.Transcatheter heart valve failure: a systematic review [published online ahead of print September 28, 2014].Eur Heart J. pii: ehu388.Google Scholar4. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, Miller DC, Moses JW, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Douglas PS, Anderson WN, Blackstone EH, Kodali SK, Makkar RR, Fontana GP, Kapadia S, Bavaria J, Hahn RT, Thourani VH, Babaliaros V, Pichard A, Herrmann HC, Brown DL, Williams M, Davidson MJ, Svensson LG, Akin J.5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial [published online ahead of print March 15, 2015].Lancet. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7.Google Scholar5. Kapadia SR, Leon MB, Makkar RR, Tuzcu EM, Svensson LG, Kodali S, Webb JG, Mack MJ, Douglas PS, Thourani VH, Babaliaros VC, Herrmann HC, Szeto WY, Pichard AD, Williams MR, Fontana GP, Miller DC, Anderson WN, Smith CR, Akin JJ,, Davidson MJ.5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial [published online ahead of print March 15, 2015].Lancet. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60290–2.Google Scholar6. International Symposium on Surgery for Heart Valve Disease London. Surgery for Heart Valve Disease: Proceedings of the 1989 Symposium. London: ICR Publishers; 1990.Google Scholar7. Heras M, Chesebro JH, Fuster V, Penny WJ, Grill DE, Bailey KR, Danielson GK, Orszulak TA, Pluth JR, Puga FJ, Schaff HV, Larsonkeller JJ.High risk of thromboemboli early after bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 25:1111–1119.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Vesey JM, Otto CM.Complications of prosthetic heart valves.Curr Cardiol Rep. 2004; 6:106–111.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O'Gara PT, O'Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B.ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.Circulation. 2006; 114:e84–e231.LinkGoogle Scholar10. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG.Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management.Circulation. 2009; 119:1034–1048. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778886.LinkGoogle Scholar11. Trepels T, Martens S, Doss M, Fichtlscherer S, Schächinger V.Images in cardiovascular medicine. Thrombotic restenosis after minimally invasive implantation of aortic valve stent.Circulation. 2009; 120:e23–e24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.864892.LinkGoogle Scholar12. Latib A, Naganuma T, Abdel-Wahab M, Danenberg H, Cota L, Barbanti M, Baumgartner H, Finkelstein A, Legrand V, Suárez de Lezo J, Kefer J, Messika-Zeitoun D, Richardt G, Stabile E, Kaleschke G, Vahanian A, Laborde JC, Leon MB, Webb JG, Panoulas VF, Maisano F, Alfieri O, Colombo A.Treatment and clinical outcomes of transcatheter heart valve thrombosis.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:e001779. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001779.LinkGoogle Scholar13. Leetmaa T, Hansson NC, Leipsic J, Jensen K, Poulsen SH, Andersen HR, Jensen JM, Webb J, Blanke P, Tang M, Nørgaard BL.Early aortic transcatheter heart valve thrombosis: diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:e001596. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001596LinkGoogle Scholar14. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Guyton RA, O'Gara PT, Ruiz CE, Skubas NJ, Sorajja P, Sundt TM, Thomas JD; ACC/AHA Task Force Members. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.Circulation. 2014; 129:e521–e643. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000031.LinkGoogle Scholar15. Lip GY, Windecker S, Huber K, Kirchhof P, Marin F, Ten Berg JM, Haeusler KG, Boriani G, Capodanno D, Gilard M, Zeymer U, Lane D, Storey RF, Bueno H, Collet JP, Fauchier L, Halvorsen S, Lettino M, Morais J, Mueller C, Potpara TS, Rasmussen LH, Rubboli A, Tamargo J, Valgimigli M, Zamorano JL; Document Reviewers. Management of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary or valve interventions: a joint consensus document of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA) endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS).Eur Heart J. 2014; 35:3155–3179. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu298.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Nijenhuis VJ, Stella PR, Baan J, Brueren BR, de Jaegere PP, den Heijer P, Hofma SH, Kievit P, Slagboom T, van den Heuvel AF, van der Kley F, van Garsse L, van Houwelingen KG, Van't Hof AW, Ten Berg JM.Antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing TAVI: an overview of Dutch hospitals.Neth Heart J. 2014; 22:64–69. doi: 10.1007/s12471-013-0496-6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Aryal MR, Karmacharya P, Pandit A, Hakim F, Pathak R, Mainali NR, Ukaigwe A, Mahmood M, Badal M, Fortuin FD.Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart Lung Circ. 2015; 24:185–192. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.07.058.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Habib G, Hoen B, Tornos P, Thuny F, Prendergast B, Vilacosta I, Moreillon P, de Jesus Antunes M, Thilen U, Lekakis J, Lengyel M, Müller L, Naber CK, Nihoyannopoulos P, Moritz A, Zamorano JL; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis (new version 2009): the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC) for Infection and Cancer.Eur Heart J. 2009; 30:2369–2413. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp285.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. López J, Revilla A, Vilacosta I, Villacorta E, González-Juanatey C, Gómez I, Rollán MJ, San Román JA.Definition, clinical profile, microbiological spectrum, and prognostic factors of early-onset prosthetic valve endocarditis.Eur Heart J. 2007; 28:760–765. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl486.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Tornos P, Almirante B, Olona M, Permanyer G, González T, Carballo J, Pahissa A, Soler-Soler J.Clinical outcome and long-term prognosis of late prosthetic valve endocarditis: a 20-year experience.Clin Infect Dis. 1997; 24:381–386.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. McElhinney DB, Benson LN, Eicken A, Kreutzer J, Padera RF, Zahn EM.Infective endocarditis after transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement using the Melody valve: combined results of 3 prospective North American and European studies.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6:292–300. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.000087.LinkGoogle Scholar22. Généreux P, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Kodali S, Kirtane AJ, Xu K, Smith C, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, Leon MB.Clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using valve academic research consortium definitions: a weighted meta-analysis of 3,519 patients from 16 studies.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:2317–2326. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.022.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Puls M, Eiffert H, Hünlich M, Schöndube F, Hasenfuß G, Seipelt R, Schillinger W.Prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the incidence in a single-centre cohort and reflections on clinical, echocardiographic and prognostic features.EuroIntervention. 2013; 8:1407–1418. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I12A214.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Olsen NT, De Backer O, Thyregod HGH, Vejlstrup N, Bundgaard H, Søndergaard L, Ihlemann N.Prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:e001939. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001939.LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Hatoum H, Singh-Gryzbon S, Esmailie F, Ruile P, Neumann F, Blanke P, Thourani V, Yoganathan A and Dasi L (2021) Predictive Model for Thrombus Formation After Transcatheter Valve Replacement, Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, 10.1007/s13239-021-00596-x, 12:6, (576-588), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Jawitz O, Gulack B, Grau-Sepulveda M, Matsouaka R, Mack M, Holmes D, Carroll J, Thourani V and Brennan J (2020) Reoperation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.04.029, 13:13, (1515-1525), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2020. Ho E, Pozzoli A, Miura M, Anwer S, Baumann F, Sebastian T, Rancic Z, Hinzpeter R, Puippe G, Haager P, Rickli H, Gavazzoni M, Kucher N, Ronny B, Kaufmann P, Alkadhi H, Maisano F, Tanner F and Zuber M (2020) Assessment and Follow-Up Multimodality Imaging for Cardiac Valvular Interventions, Volume 1 Aortic Valve, 10.1007/978-3-030-27584-6_5, (187-218), . Heitkemper M, Hatoum H and Dasi L (2019) In vitro hemodynamic assessment of a novel polymeric transcatheter aortic valve, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.06.016, 98, (163-171), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2019. Heitkemper M and Dasi L (2019) Polymeric heart valves Principles of Heart Valve Engineering, 10.1016/B978-0-12-814661-3.00013-7, (343-359), . Drexler I, Legasto A, Green D and Truong Q (2019) Cardiac Devices CT of the Heart, 10.1007/978-1-60327-237-7_40, (487-500), . Hatoum H, Yousefi A, Lilly S, Maureira P, Crestanello J and Dasi L (2018) An in vitro evaluation of turbulence after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.05.042, 156:5, (1837-1848), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018. Mariathas M, Rawlins J and Curzen N (2017) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: where are we now?, Future Cardiology, 10.2217/fca-2017-0056, 13:6, (551-566), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017. Antunes M (2017) Early failure of transcatheter aortic valves: A timely warning!, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.01.025, 153:5, (e95-e96), Online publication date: 1-May-2017. Jose J, Sulimov D, El-Mawardy M, Sato T, Allali A, Holy E, Becker B, Landt M, Kebernik J, Schwarz B, Richardt G and Abdel-Wahab M (2017) Clinical Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Thrombosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.01.045, 10:7, (686-697), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017. Yanagisawa R, Hayashida K, Yamada Y, Tanaka M, Yashima F, Inohara T, Arai T, Kawakami T, Maekawa Y, Tsuruta H, Itabashi Y, Murata M, Sano M, Okamoto K, Yoshitake A, Shimizu H, Jinzaki M and Fukuda K (2017) Incidence, Predictors, and Mid-Term Outcomes of Possible Leaflet Thrombosis After TAVR, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.11.005, 10:1, (1-11), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017. Petit C (2015) Pediatric Transcatheter Valve Replacement, Circulation, 131:22, (1943-1945), Online publication date: 2-Jun-2015. April 2015Vol 8, Issue 4 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002531PMID: 25873732 Originally publishedApril 14, 2015 KeywordsEditorialstranscatheter aortic valve replacementPDF download Advertisement SubjectsCardiovascular Surgery
Referência(s)