Benedetta Grossi, Giulia Luraghi, Sara Barati, Chiara Forte, Luca Gerosa, Ottavia Cozzi, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Gianluigi Condorelli, Francesco Migliavacca, Giulio Stefanini
{"title":"The impact of bicuspid valve morphology on the selection of transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices: an <i>in silico</i> study.","authors":"Benedetta Grossi, Giulia Luraghi, Sara Barati, Chiara Forte, Luca Gerosa, Ottavia Cozzi, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Gianluigi Condorelli, Francesco Migliavacca, Giulio Stefanini","doi":"10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) represents a challenge for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Few data are reported about the procedural implications of BAV using different self-expandable devices. The aim of this study is to investigate how BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphologies influence device selection and their impact on the potential development of post-operative conduction disturbances, using a novel <i>in silico</i> approach.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Five patients with BAV undergoing TAVI were enrolled. TAVs were virtually modelled within each BAV patient-specific anatomy, resulting in 10 virtual patients. Acurate Neo2 and Evolut R implantations were subsequently simulated across all cases. Post-implantation stresses exerted on both the stent and aortic root were measured, allowing a comparative analysis of the impact of the two valve morphologies. Comparing stent stresses between BAV and TAV configurations, the stress gap increased by 21.96 ± 5.35% (<i>P</i> = 0.01) in Acurate Neo2 cases (<i>n</i> = 6) compared with Evolut R cases (<i>n</i> = 4). The analysis of aortic root stresses showed no significant differences between BAV (<i>n</i> = 5) and TAV (<i>n</i> = 5) configurations, with a mean stress difference of 5.1 ± 8.17% (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our patient-specific model shows that high radial force devices, such as Evolut R, demonstrate consistent expansion regardless of valve morphology, without increasing the risk of post-implantation conduction disturbances, hence resulting more suitable for BAV cases. Incorporating this methodology into pre-operative planning could support clinicians in selecting the most suitable device with a patient-specific approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":94317,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","volume":"3 1","pages":"qyaf018"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11879518/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) represents a challenge for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Few data are reported about the procedural implications of BAV using different self-expandable devices. The aim of this study is to investigate how BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphologies influence device selection and their impact on the potential development of post-operative conduction disturbances, using a novel in silico approach.
Methods and results: Five patients with BAV undergoing TAVI were enrolled. TAVs were virtually modelled within each BAV patient-specific anatomy, resulting in 10 virtual patients. Acurate Neo2 and Evolut R implantations were subsequently simulated across all cases. Post-implantation stresses exerted on both the stent and aortic root were measured, allowing a comparative analysis of the impact of the two valve morphologies. Comparing stent stresses between BAV and TAV configurations, the stress gap increased by 21.96 ± 5.35% (P = 0.01) in Acurate Neo2 cases (n = 6) compared with Evolut R cases (n = 4). The analysis of aortic root stresses showed no significant differences between BAV (n = 5) and TAV (n = 5) configurations, with a mean stress difference of 5.1 ± 8.17% (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Our patient-specific model shows that high radial force devices, such as Evolut R, demonstrate consistent expansion regardless of valve morphology, without increasing the risk of post-implantation conduction disturbances, hence resulting more suitable for BAV cases. Incorporating this methodology into pre-operative planning could support clinicians in selecting the most suitable device with a patient-specific approach.