Objectives: To explore the rate, the determinants of success, and the hemodynamic impact of balloon postdilatation (BPD) of self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (SE-THVs). Background: BPD is commonly used to optimize valve expansion and reduce paravalvular leakage (PVL) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) without clearly knowing its hemodynamic benefits. Methods: Patients (n = 307) who received a SE-THV were stratified according to whether a BPD was performed or not. Patients who received BPD were stratified according to the severity of PVL remaining after BPD into two groups: Successful BPD (≤mild PVL + BPD) and Failed BPD (moderate-severe PVL + BPD). Results: BPD was performed in 121 patients (39.4%) and was successful in 106 patients (87.6% of attempts). A ratio of the postdilatation balloon diameter to the annulus diameter ≤0.95 was an independent predictor of BPD failure (OR: 10.72 [2.02-56.76], P =.005). Peak transvalvular pressure gradient (PG) was lower in the Successful BPD group (14[12-22] mm Hg) than in the Failed BPD group (18[16-23] mm Hg, P =.029), and did not rise in either group during follow-up (median [IQR], 364[161-739] days). Conclusion: BPD was performed in 39% of patients who received a SE-THV, and was successful in the majority of attempts. BPD failure was more likely in patients with a small postdilatation balloon-to-annulus diameter ratio. Effective BPD improved THV hemodynamic performance, and this was maintained in the intermediate-term post-TAVI.

Additional Metadata
Keywords balloon, hemodynamic, postdilatation, regurgitation, self-expanding, transcatheter aortic valve
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27538, hdl.handle.net/1765/112319
Journal Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Citation
Abdelghani, M, de Winter, R.J, Miyazaki, Y, Modolo, R. (Rodrigo), Tateishi, H, Cavalcante, R, … De Brito Jr., F.S. (2018). Determinants of success and hemodynamic impact of balloon postdilatation of self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 92(5), 945–953. doi:10.1002/ccd.27538