A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Ideal Navitor Implant Depth for Redo-TAVR Feasibility and Coronary Access: A CT Simulation Study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The impact of implant depth of the Abbott Navitor intra-annular, self-expanding valve on redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) feasibility is unknown.

Objectives: The authors sought to determine the feasibility of redo-TAVR and coronary access with Edwards Sapien 3 (S3) valve after initial Navitor valve, based on various implant depths on computed tomography (CT) simulation.

Methods: Using 2050 pre-TAVR CTs of patients with native aortic stenosis, initial Navitor TAVR simulations were done at 3 implant depths (0 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm), with frame expansion assumed at native annular dimensions and commissural alignment not achievable. Redo-TAVR with S3 was deemed unfeasible based on valve-to-sinotubular junction and/or valve-to-sinus height distances <2 mm, while the neoskirt height of the S3 valve based on target implant depth determined coronary access feasibility.

Results: Redo-TAVR was deemed the least unfeasible in 2.3% of patients with initial Navitor implant depth at 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted lower at Node 2 vs 40.5% of patients with initial Navitor depth at 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted higher at Node 3 (P < 0.0001). Similarly, coronary access was the least challenging with initial Navitor depth at 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted lower at Node 2 (P < 0.0001). These results were similar across all Navitor valve sizes. Commissural alignment in Navitor improved redo-TAVR feasibility only when implanted at 5 mm.

Conclusions: In our CT simulation study, redo-TAVR and coronary access were predicted to be the most favorable with initial Navitor implant depth of 3 mm and redo-S3 implanted lower at Node 2. In vivo analysis will help confirm these findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12356301PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102055DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

implant depth
8
coronary access
8
initial navitor
8
implant depths
8
ideal navitor
4
implant
4
navitor implant
4
depth redo-tavr
4
redo-tavr feasibility
4
feasibility coronary
4

Similar Publications