FIRST RESULTS OF USING THE XPAND DEVICE FOR TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION IN UKRAINE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54890/.v1i1.61Abstract
Abstract. Recent developments in the field of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have led to arised interest for the optimization of this procedure and related devices for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. This is the first study to examine novel XPand device, jointly developed by German, French and Ukrainian scientists. This study aims to
contribute to this growing area of research by exploring efficacy and safety in patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Objective. To evaluate the procedure effectiveness and long-term outcomes for XPand device implantation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Materials and methods. We initiated a single-center clinical trial to evaluate the XPand
device and already perform an initial analysis of the primary outcomes. After patients fitted the inclusion criteria full examination they underwent TAVI procedure using the XPand system. Postoperative result evaluation was performed according to the established protocol.
Outcomes. Primary good results for TAVI XPand were obtained in all patients (n = 7). The average length of stay in the hospital after the procedure was 20 ± 1.25 days. The postoperative period was unremarkable. In 71.5% of patients the minimal paravalvular insufficiency or insufficiency absence were obtained after the final aortography.
Comments. The first experience of using modern device XPand for transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve prosthesis confirms its effectiveness and safety in patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Keywords:
aortic valve, aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, XPand.References
1.Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Nkomo VT, LeReun CM, Bogers AJ, Piazza N, Kappetein AP. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013 Sep 10;62(11):1002-12. doi. org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015
2.Bloomfield P. Choice of heart valve prosthesis. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2002;87(6):5839. doi. org/10.1136/heart.87.6.583
3.Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J, Hoffmann M, Schuler G, Mehmel HC, Schmitz W, Kьbler W. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation. 1982;66(5):1105-10.
4.Collas V, Philipsen T, Rodrigus I, Vrints C, Paelinck BP, Bosmans J. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: review and current state of the art. EMJ Int Cardiol. 2014;1:52-61.
5.Barbanti M, Petronio AS, Ettori F, Latib A, Bedogni F, De Marco F, Poli A, Boschetti C, De Carlo M, Fiorina C, Colombo A, Brambilla N, Bruschi G, Martina P, Pandolfi C, Giannini C, Curello S, Sgroi C, Gulino S, Patanи M, Ohno Y, Tamburino C, Attizzani GF, Immи S, Gentili A, Tamburino C. 5-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With CoreValve Prosthesis. JACC Cardiovascular interventions. 2015;8(8):1084-91.
6.Toggweiler S, Kobza R. Pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve: why is this still happening? Journal of thoracic disease. 2018 Nov;10(Suppl 30):S3614- S3619. doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.06.103
7.Cribier A. Historical perspective: 10th year anniversary of TAVI. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(Suppl Q):Q15-Q17 Zhang Y, Pyxaras SA, Wolf A, Schmitz T, Naber CK. Propensity-matched comparison between Direct Flow Medical, Medtronic Corevalve, and Edwards Sapien XT prostheses: Device success, thirty-day safety, and mortality. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85(7):1217- 25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.25831
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
