Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Differences in left ventricular remodelling in patients with aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement with corevalve prostheses compared to surgery with porcine or bovine biological prostheses

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Prognostic value of ratio of transmitral early filling velocity to early diastolic strain rate in patients with Type 2 diabetes

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Normal values of aortic dimensions assessed by multidetector computed tomography in the Copenhagen General Population Study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Cardiac output during targeted temperature management and renal function after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Mechanical circulatory support for decompensated heart failure: the last remaining indication for intra-aortic balloon pump?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Aims: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) can be considered for treatment with either transcatheter (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The purpose of this study was to compare left ventricular (LV) remodeling in patients with AS after treatment with TAVR or SAVR.

Methods and results: This is an echocardiographic substudy of the NOTION trial, a randomized all-comers trial comparing TAVR with SAVR in patients above 70 years of age. Transthoracic echocardiograms were performed at baseline, 3 and 12 months after TAVR and SAVR. About 232 patients were included in the study, 120 were randomized to TAVR and 112 to SAVR. From baseline to 12 months post-procedure, aortic valve area (AVA) increased in both groups, but with a larger increase in the TAVR group (0.65 ± 0.04 cm2 vs. 1.02 ± 0.05 cm2 for SAVR and TAVR group, P < 0.0001). At 12 months, LV mass regression was more pronounced in the SAVR group as compared with TAVR (17.5% vs. 7.2%, P < 0.001). In the TAVR group at 12 months, end diastolic volume (EDV) increased by 10.2 ± 2.5 ml and, in the SAVR group, EDV decreased by 15.4 ± 2.6 ml with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.0001). Paravalvular leakage (PVL) and pacemaker implantations were more common in patients treated with TAVR, which was associated with an increase in EDV (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Patients undergoing SAVR had a larger LV mass regression at 1 year compared with patients undergoing TAVR, which may be due to increasing amounts of PVL and pacemakers in the TAVR group.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean heart journal cardiovascular Imaging
Volume19
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)39-46
Number of pages8
ISSN1525-2167
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

    Research areas

  • Journal Article

ID: 51420038