Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Stenosis Having Coronary Cusp Fusion versus Mixed Cusp Fusion Nonraphe Bicuspid Aortic Valve
Table 2
Procedural characteristics.
Characteristic
Total (N = 71)
Mixed fusion (N = 44)
Coronary fusion (N = 27)
value
Transfemoral approach
71 (100%)
44 (100%)
27 (100%)
1.0
Local anesthesia
9 (12.7%)
6 (13.6%)
3 (11.1%)
0.52
Predilation
66 (93.0%)
41 (93.2%)
25 (92.6%)
1.0
Oversizing ratio (%)
12.2 ± 11.3
12.5 ± 11.7
11.7 ± 10.7
0.79
Implantation depth (mm)
6.5 ± 3.8
6.8 ± 3.6
5.9 ± 4.1
0.37
Transcatheter heart valve type
0.83
Medtronic CoreValve
16 (22.5%)
11 (25%)
5 (18.5%)
0.57
Venus-A
33 (46.5%)
21 (47.7%)
12 (44.4%)
0.81
VitaFlow
6 (8.5%)
3 (6.8%)
3 (11.1%)
0.67
Lotus
16 (22.5%)
9 (20.5%)
7 (25.9%)
0.77
Mean valve diameter (mm)
26.1 ± 2.2
25.9 ± 1.7
26.7 ± 2.9
0.152
Medtronic CoreValve/Venus-A
0.005
23
3 (4.2%)
2 (4.5%)
1 (3.7%)
1.0
26
30 (42.3%)
24 (54.5%)
6 (22.2%)
0.013
29
12 (16.9%)
6 (13.6%)
6 (22.2%)
0.30
31/32
4 (5.6%)
0
4 (14.8%)
0.011
VitaFlow
0.40
24
4 (5.6%)
1 (2.3%)
3 (11.1%)
27
2 (2.8%)
2 (4.5%)
0
Lotus valve
1.0
23
7 (9.9%)
4 (9.1%)
3 (11.1%)
25
9 (12.7%)
5 (11.4%)
4 (14.8%)
Need for a second valve
11 (15.5%)
7 (15.9%)
4 (14.8%)
1.0
Postdilation
28 (39.4%)
17 (38.6%)
11 (40.7%)
0.80
The patients were stratified according to the type of cusp fusion. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation or frequency (percentage). Oversizing ratio calculated based on valve perimeter for self-expandable valves and based on valve area for Lotus valves. Implantation depth defined as the distance between the lowest point of the noncoronary sinus and the corresponding inflow part of the frame.
