RESUMO
Treatment of degenerative aortic stenosis has been transformed by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over the past 10-15 years. The success of various technologies has led operators to attempt to broaden the indications, and many patients with native valve aortic regurgitation have been treated 'off label' with similar techniques. However, the alterations in the structure of the valve complex in pure native aortic regurgitation are distinct to those in degenerative aortic stenosis, and there are unique challenges to be overcome by percutaneous valves. Nevertheless some promise has been shown with both non-dedicated and dedicated devices. In this article, the authors explore some of these challenges and review the current evidence base for TAVI for aortic regurgitation.
RESUMO
AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and performance of the TriGuard™ Embolic Deflection Device (EDD), a nitinol mesh filter positioned in the aortic arch across all three major cerebral artery take-offs to deflect emboli away from the cerebral circulation, in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The prospective, multicentre DEFLECT I study (NCT01448421) enrolled 37 consecutive subjects undergoing TAVR with the TriGuard EDD. Subjects underwent clinical and cognitive follow-up to 30 days; cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) was performed pre-procedure and at 4±2 days post procedure. The device performed as intended with successful cerebral coverage in 80% (28/35) of cases. The primary safety endpoint (in-hospital EDD device- or EDD procedure-related cardiovascular mortality, major stroke disability, life-threatening bleeding, distal embolisation, major vascular complications, or need for acute cardiac surgery) occurred in 8.1% of subjects (VARC-defined two life-threatening bleeds and one vascular complication). The presence of new cerebral ischaemic lesions on post-procedure DW-MRI (n=28) was similar to historical controls (82% vs. 76%, p=NS). However, an exploratory analysis found that per-patient total lesion volume was 34% lower than reported historical data (0.2 vs. 0.3 cm3), and 89% lower in patients with complete (n=17) versus incomplete (n=10) cerebral vessel coverage (0.05 vs. 0.45 cm3, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the first-generation TriGuard EDD during TAVR is safe, and device performance was successful in 80% of cases during the highest embolic-risk portions of the TAVR procedure. The potential of the TriGuard EDD to reduce total cerebral ischaemic burden merits further randomised investigation.