Predilatation Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Is it Still a Prerequisite?

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Predilatation has been historically considered a mandatory step before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) since it facilitates valve crossing and prosthesis delivery, ensures optimal valve expansion and improves hemodynamic stability during valve deployment. However, as a result of procedural evolution over time, direct TAVI (without pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty) has emerged as an interesting option to simplify the procedure and to avoid potential valvuloplasty-related complications. Several real-world retrospective studies and one small randomised study have shown that direct TAVI (with both self-expanding and balloon-expandable prostheses) is feasible, safe and associated with outcomes similar to standard TAVI with pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty. In the absence of high-quality, robust evidence, the current review aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of omitting predilatation prior to TAVI.

Disclosure
AL is on the advisory board of Medtronic (MN, USA). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Azeem Latib, Interventional Cardiology Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. E: alatib@gmail.com
Received date
18 June 2017
Accepted date
04 August 2017
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review 2017;12(2):116–25.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2017:17:2

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an established treatment option for patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at high or intermediate surgical risk.1–4 From the very beginning of TAVI technology, valve preparation by performing pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty (pre-BAV) has been considered a necessary step to facilitate device implantation and ensure optimal valve expansion.5 However, as a result of procedural evolution over time and increasing operator experience, direct TAVI (without predilatation) has recently emerged as a new option to simplify the procedure and to avoid potential BAV-related complications (cerebrovascular events, conduction disturbances, severe acute aortic regurgitation and even annular rupture).6–9 After the first pioneering experience of Grube et al.,10 several observational studies and one small randomised study have evaluated procedural and clinical outcomes of TAVI with and without predilatation (Table 1). Therefore, this review aims to discuss the advantages of both direct TAVI and standard TAVI with pre-BAV, in light of the current published evidence.

Direct TAVI: Moving Toward a Simplified Approach

In an effort to obtain a more simplified and straightforward procedure, direct TAVI has increasingly been studied and performed (Table 1). Recent analysis of the UK TAVI Registry has shown a decreasing trend in the proportion of TAVI patients undergoing predilatation between 2007 and 2014; moreover, among centres with high experience (>200 TAVI performed), the rate of direct TAVI was around 50 %, decreasing to 11 % among centres with low experience (1–50 TAVI performed).11 These findings confirm the interest of more experienced operators in exploring a direct TAVI approach; simultaneously, they raise an interesting question regarding the potential (or demonstrated) advantages of removing predilatation.

Procedural Time and Contrast Use

As a logical result of removing one procedural step, this approach leads to shorter procedural time and lower total contrast volume use than TAVI with pre-BAV.12,13 This aspect may represent an interesting advantage for patients in whom a longer procedural time may be undesired, such as hemodynamically unstable patients, patients with severe left or right ventricular dysfunction or severe pulmonary hypertension (who, in addition, may not tolerate rapid pacing performed during balloon valvuloplasty). Furthermore, subjects at higher risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (e.g. those with pre-existing chronic kidney disease or diabetes mellitus) may benefit from lower contrast use during the procedure.14

Safety and Feasibility of Direct TAVI

The omission of one procedural step may be justified only if the simplified approach is demonstrated to be feasible, safe and not associated with adverse outcomes. The largest study exploring postprocedural outcomes after direct TAVI is the abovementioned UK TAVI Registry, that included 5,887 patients undergoing TAVI with vs without pre-BAV. In that study, direct TAVI was not associated with a higher rate of adverse short-term outcomes, especially when using the balloon-expandable SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) valve. For the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) prosthesis, the use of predilatation was associated with lower odds of valve dysfunction before correction for multiple testing; however, this finding was not confirmed after multiplicity correction.11 These results are in line with a recent small prospective study that found similar early outcomes among 60 patients randomised to balloon-expandable TAVI (SAPIEN XT) with vs without predilatation.15 Moreover, recent large observational studies (including both balloon-expandable and selfexpanding valves) have confirmed that direct TAVI is associated with similar mid-term clinical outcomes compared to TAVI with pre-BAV.16–18 These real-world data, along with recent meta-analyses,12,13,19 suggest that simplified TAVI without predilatation is feasible, safe and achieves comparable clinical outcomes to standard TAVI with predilatation, justifying future research in this field.

Table 1: Studies Comparing the Outcomes of Patients Undergoing TAVI With and Without Predilatation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 1: Studies Comparing the Outcomes of Patients Undergoing TAVI With and Without Predilatation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 1: Studies Comparing the Outcomes of Patients Undergoing TAVI With and Without Predilatation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 1: Studies Comparing the Outcomes of Patients Undergoing TAVI With and Without Predilatation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 1: Studies Comparing the Outcomes of Patients Undergoing TAVI With and Without Predilatation

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Conduction Disturbances

The omission of pre-BAV SAPIEN may theoretically reduce the iatrogenic damage to the conduction system, leading to a lower risk of conduction disturbances and, consequently, of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after TAVI. Indeed, new conduction disturbances may not only occur during valve implantation, but also during the predilatation step, especially in the case of high balloon/aortic annulus ratio.20 Lange et al. have shown that moderate predilatation performed with smaller valvuloplasty balloons is associated with a reduced rate of PPI after CoreValve implantation; therefore, the authors proposed a two-hit model, where the first hit to the conduction system is given by a large valvuloplasty balloon and is usually insufficient to determine an advanced conduction disturbance, whereas the second hit is given by valve deployment and may eventually lead to the final damage requiring PPI.21 In line with these considerations, a recent analysis of the Brazilian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement registry has reported that avoiding pre-BAV reduces the rate of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block after TAVI, particularly when implanting a CoreValve prosthesis.16 Although that study failed to demonstrate an association between omission of pre-BAV and reduction of PPI, recent meta-analyses and the large UK TAVI registry suggest a signal towards lower PPI rate with direct TAVI.11–13 Nevertheless, as the decision to perform pre-BAV was left to the operator’s discretion in most published studies, a significant selection bias may have influenced these findings; only large randomised studies will clarify the impact of predilatation on conduction disturbances and PPI rate after TAVI.

Pre-procedural Imaging Planning

In the absence of definitive conclusions on the usefulness of predilatation during TAVI, the optimal strategy is probably to tailor the procedure to the individual patient. In daily practice, the interventional cardiologist should take into account all potential advantages of omitting pre-BAV and, therefore, avoiding its related complications (conduction disturbances, the risk of mobilising aortic debris potentially embolising to the brain, severe acute aortic regurgitation leading to haemodynamic compromise, and even annular rupture);6–9,22 however, in some patients predilatation may still be useful to optimise valve implantation and should be considered when planning the procedure. In this context, pre-procedural imaging techniques may be pivotal in deciding whether to predilate or not before TAVI. A recent study evaluated the usefulness of transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to select ideal candidates for direct TAVI with both balloonexpandable (SAPIEN XT) and self-expanding (CoreValve) prostheses. Among patients fulfilling all the proposed TEE criteria (valve area >0.4 cm2; central orifice; absence of severe valve calcification; mobility of aortic cusps not severely restricted; no left ventricular outflow tract calcification; absence of calcium nodules in the landing zone; absence of severe aortic regurgitation), TAVI without pre-BAV was performed with a high rate of success and low rates of postdilatation, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and PPI implantation.23 Combining anatomical and functional information obtained with a multimodality approach (TEE and multidetector computed tomography [MDCT]) could represent the ideal strategy to identify the subset of patients who can safely undergo simplified TAVI without predilatation.

TAVI with Predilatation: Potential Advantages of ‘Preparing the Ground’

A main concern regarding the omission of predilatation is the risk of technical challenges during TAVI. Pre-BAV may facilitate valve crossing and delivery of the prosthesis across the stenotic valve (especially in patients with very small aortic valve area), ensure optimal valve expansion (by reducing radial counterforces) and improve haemodynamic stability during valve deployment. Interestingly, a range of technical difficulties has been reported when adopting a direct TAVI approach, including haemodynamic instability during device positioning in severely stenotic valves, severe underexpansion of the prosthesis in heavily calcified valves, inability to cross the valve, trapping of the prosthesis inside the left ventricle and coaxiality issues.16 Furthermore, as already mentioned, the UK TAVI registry showed a signal towards increased valve dysfunction among patients receiving a CoreValve prosthesis without pre-BAV (a finding that was, however, not confirmed after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing).11 Although bailout predilatation may represent an option to overcome pre-implantation technical issues,16,24,25 careful selection of patients needing pre-BAV before TAVI is advisable to avoid the risk of severe procedural complications. Pre-procedural planning by means of combined imaging techniques (TEE and MDCT) allows the identification of basic anatomical features in which a standard TAVI approach (with predilatation) should be considered, such as severe or asymmetric aortic valve calcification, small aortic valve area (<0.5 cm2), horizontal aorta (especially when implanting self-expanding prostheses) or bicuspid aortic valve anatomy.18,23,26–29

Pre-BAV may be very helpful also in situations where prosthesis sizing is not completely established or the potential risk of coronary obstruction requires further assessment (especially when coronary artery takeoffs are low).30 As MDCT has become the standard technique for valve sizing and coronary ostia evaluation before TAVI, these two indications are limited to a very low number of patients in the contemporary TAVI era; nonetheless, pre-BAV represents a rescue option for patients in whom MDCT cannot be performed or is not conclusive.

Cerebral Embolic Risk

One of the proposed advantages of direct TAVI is to avoid the risk of debris embolisation during balloon valvuloplasty, potentially resulting in a lower rate of cerebrovascular events.10 However, a recent study evaluating cerebral ischemic lesions after TAVI has suggested the opposite idea. Bijuklic et al. have evaluated covert brain lesions detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging after TAVI in patients undergoing balloon-expandable valve (SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3) implantation with or without predilatation. The total lesion volume of cerebral ischemic lesions was significantly higher among patients undergoing direct TAVI; the incidence and number of cerebral lesions were only numerically (not significantly) higher in the direct TAVI group.31 These results seem in line with a recent study reporting a higher 30-day overt stroke rate in patients undergoing direct TAVI, especially when implanting self-expanding (CoreValve or Evolut R) prostheses; however, this finding was not confirmed after propensity score matching.17 The idea of a higher risk of cerebral damage when performing TAVI without predilatation seems counterintuitive as balloon dilatation of the aortic valve may per se be complicated by post-procedural stroke6,7,22,32 and one may suppose that pre-BAV before TAVI may confer an additive risk of neurological events. Conversely, it can be speculated that balloon inflation fragments calcific debris present on a heavily degenerated and diseased aortic valve, stabilises such debris through a homogeneous apposition onto aortic leaflets and the ascending aortic wall, and reduces the size of pieces that embolise during subsequent valve implantation. Studies evaluating transcranial Doppler-detected cerebral embolic load during TAVI have shown that only a limited number of high-intensity transient signals (a surrogate for microembolisation) occur during pre-BAV, while prosthesis positioning and deployment are the two phases associated with the highest embolic load,33–35 indirectly suggesting that the predilatation step does not significantly increase the cerebral embolic risk of the TAVI procedure. However, most published studies have shown a similar rate of clinical strokes in TAVI with and without pre-BAV11,12,15 and the reason for the higher risk of covert cerebral injury reported in the study of Bijuklic et al. remains completely speculative.31 Only future large, dedicated studies will definitively clarify the impact of predilatation on the risk of overt/covert cerebral injury after TAVI, especially if investigating the cerebral embolic load during all procedural steps.

Figure 1: Proposed Decision-making Algorithm for the Selection of Patients who can be Considered for Direct TAVI (Without Predilatation)

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Paravalvular Leakage

An expected limitation of direct TAVI is the risk of suboptimal valve expansion, potentially resulting in higher incidence and severity of residual paravalvular leakage (PVL) after the procedure. The occurrence of PVL immediately after valve implantation may lead to an increased need for postdilatation, a step that may theoretically impair prosthesis durability and that has been specifically associated with a higher risk of cerebrovascular events.36–38 In line with these considerations, a recent study has reported a higher rate of postdilatation in patients undergoing direct transfemoral TAVI,17 a finding that was confirmed in a meta-analysis.12 Unfortunately, the largest available study did not evaluate the need for postdilatation,11 preventing us from drawing more robust conclusions on this procedural aspect. With respect to the impact of direct TAVI on significant PVL, most published studies have reported similar rates of residual moderate or severe PVL after TAVI with or without predilatation (Table 1), including the large UK TAVI registry.11 Interestingly, two meta-analyses have suggested a reduced risk of moderate or severe PVL with direct TAVI (a result that was, however, not confirmed in a subanalysis evaluating only transfemoral TAVI).12,13 Although this counterintuitive finding seems to suggest an improved valve positioning with direct TAVI, the retrospective nature of the studies included may have determined a relevant selection bias. The choice of a predilatation strategy was left to the operators’ discretion, therefore it is likely that direct TAVI was performed more frequently in patients with favourable anatomical characteristics and the absence of severe or asymmetric aortic valve calcification. As the quantity and asymmetry of aortic valve calcification predict the severity of post-procedural PVL,39–44 this selection bias is of paramount importance. Moreover, other confounders such as device improvements and increasing the operator’s experience may have influenced these analyses. In the absence of high-quality, robust evidence on the incidence and severity of PVL after direct TAVI, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn; however, as PVL negatively affects clinical outcomes after TAVI,3,45–54 future large, randomised studies are needed to further address the risk of PVL when performing TAVI with or without predilatation.

‘Moderate’ Predilatation

An interesting option that has been recently proposed is performing TAVI with a moderate predilatation, i.e. prior balloon valvuloplasty with a smaller balloon size. This approach could preserve the advantages of pre-BAV in ‘preparing the ground’ before valve implantation, avoiding the risks of predilatation with a standard or larger balloon. As already mentioned, Lange et al. have shown that moderate predilatation (use of valvuloplasty balloons with ≤23 mm diameter) reduces the rate of PPI in patients undergoing TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis, without affecting procedural success.21 Although the use of smaller balloons may conceivably reduce the iatrogenic damage to the conduction system, a concern regarding moderate pre-BAV is impaired valve expansion, mainly when using self-expanding devices and in cases of severe valve calcification. Moreover, recent studies have reported similar procedural success and clinical outcomes after TAVI with moderate predilatation (average balloon diameter of 15–16 mm; mean balloon diameter/MDCT mean annulus diameter ratio of 0.62–0.65) compared with direct TAVI with balloon-expandable valves.18,27 Of note, valve repositioning during implantation of newer self-expanding devices could arguably represent a form of mild predilatation; however, the relative role of this step with respect to pre-BAV is currently unknown. Future large, dedicated studies will better evaluate the potential advantages of moderate pre-BAV over standard or larger pre-BAV or direct TAVI in terms of procedural and clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

A growing interest in direct TAVI (without predilatation) has emerged during the last few years in an effort to obtain a more simplified procedure and to avoid the potential complications associated with pre-BAV. Recent real-world observational experiences and a small randomised study suggest that direct TAVI is safe, feasible and associated with outcomes similar to standard TAVI with pre-BAV (Table 1). In the absence of strong available evidence, several clinical and anatomical characteristics may help the interventional cardiologist in deciding whether or not to predilate before TAVI (Figure 1). However, future studies are needed to deeply investigate the safety and outcomes of direct TAVI and to identify the right subset of patients who can safely undergo this simplified approach. The results of ongoing dedicated randomised trials (The preDIlatation in tRanscathEter aortiC Valve implanTation Trial [DIRECT], NCT02448927; Implantation of the Transcatheter Aortic Prosthesis SAPIEN 3 With or Without Prior Balloon Predilatation [DIRECTAVI], NCT02729519; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Without Predilation [SIMPLIFy TAVI], NCT01539746) and prospective multicentre registries (Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With or Without Predilation of the Aortic Valve [EASE-IT TF],55 NCT02760771; Balloon Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Without Predilation of the Aortic Valve [EASE-IT],56 NCT02127580) will provide additional evidence on these unresolved issues.

References
  1. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187–98.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597–607.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1609–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediaterisk patients. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1321–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Vahanian A, Himbert D. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: could it be done without prior balloon valvuloplasty? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:758–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Ben-Dor I, Pichard AD, Satler LF, et al. Complications and outcome of balloon aortic valvuloplasty in high-risk or inoperable patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:1150–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Acute and 30-day follow-up results in 674 patients from the NHLBI Balloon Valvuloplasty Registry. Circulation 1991;84:2383–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Eltchaninoff H, Cribier A, Tron C, et al. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty in elderly patients at high risk for surgery, or inoperable. Immediate and mid-term results. Eur Heart J 1995;16:1079–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Saia F, Marrozzini C, Ciuca C, et al. Emerging indications, in-hospital and long-term outcome of balloon aortic valvuloplasty in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation era. EuroIntervention 2013;8:1388–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Grube E, Naber C, Abizaid A, et al. Feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon pre-dilation: a pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:751–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Martin GP, Sperrin M, Bagur R, et al. Pre‐implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty and clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a propensity score analysis of the UK registry. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e004695.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Auffret V, Regueiro A, Campelo-Parada F, et al. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement without balloon predilation: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017. epub ahead of press
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Liao Y, Meng Y, Zhao Z, et al. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon predilation. Am J Cardiol 2016;117:1629–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Giannini F, Latib A, Jabbour RJ, et al. The ratio of contrast volume to glomerular filtration rate predicts acute kidney injury and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med 2017. epub ahead of press
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Ahn HC, Nielsen N-E, Baranowski J. Can predilatation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation be omitted? A prospective randomized study. J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;11:124.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Bernardi FLM, Ribeiro HB, Carvalho LA, et al. Direct transcatheter heart valve implantation versus implantation with balloon predilatation: insights from the Brazilian transcatheter aortic valve replacement registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016 Aug;9(8).
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Pagnesi M, Jabbour RJ, Latib A, et al. Usefulness of predilation before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 2016;118:107–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Abramowitz Y, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, et al. Feasibility and safety of balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation with moderate or without predilatation. EuroIntervention 2016;11:1132–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Bagur R, Kwok CS, Nombela-Franco L, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without preimplantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5(6).
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Nuis RJ, Van Mieghem NM, Schultz CJ, et al. Timing and potential mechanisms of new conduction abnormalities during the implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve System in patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 2011;32:2067–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Lange P, Greif M, Vogel A, et al. Reduction of pacemaker implantation rates after CoreValve® implantation by moderate predilatation. EuroIntervention 2014;9:1151–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Sack S, Kahlert P, Khandanpour S, et al. Revival of an old method with new techniques: balloon aortic valvuloplasty of the calcified aortic stenosis in the elderly. Clin Res Cardiol 2008;97:288–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Islas F, Almería C, García-Fernández E, et al. Usefulness of echocardiographic criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon predilation: a single-center experience. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015;28:423–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Kim W-K, Praz F, Blumenstein J, et al. Transfemoral aortic valve implantation of Edwards SAPIEN 3 without predilatation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017;89:E38–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Chan PH, Mario C Di, Moat N. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon predilatation: not always feasible. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013;82:328–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Spaziano M, Sawaya F, Chevalier B, et al. Comparison of systematic predilation, selective predilation, and direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the SAPIEN S3 valve. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:260–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Abramowitz Y, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, et al. Sapien 3 transcatheter aortic valve implantation with moderate or without predilation. J Invasive Cardiol 2016;28:421–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. García E, Martín P, Hernández R, et al. Feasibility and safety of transfemoral implantation of Edwards SAPIEN XT prosthesis without balloon valvuloplasty in severe stenosis of native aortic valve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;83:791–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Abramowitz Y, Maeno Y, Chakravarty T, et al. Aortic angulation attenuates procedural success following self-expandable but not balloon-expandable TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;9:964–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Otto CM, Kumbhani DJ, Alexander KP, et al. 2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the management of adults with aortic stenosis: a report of the American College of Cardiology task force on clinical expert consensus documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1313–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Bijuklic K, Haselbach T, Witt J, et al. Increased risk of cerebral embolization after implantation of a balloon-expandable aortic valve without prior balloon valvuloplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:1608–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Alkhouli M, Zack CJ, Sarraf M, et al. Morbidity and mortality associated with balloon aortic valvuloplasty: a national perspective. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:e004481.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Rodés-Cabau J, Kahlert P, Neumann F-J, et al. Feasibility and exploratory efficacy evaluation of the Embrella Embolic Deflector system for the prevention of cerebral emboli in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PROTAVI-C pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:1146– 55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Erdoes G, Basciani R, Huber C, et al. Transcranial Dopplerdetected cerebral embolic load during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:778–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Kahlert P, Al-Rashid F, Döttger P, et al. Cerebral embolization during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a transcranial Doppler study. Circulation 2012;126:1245–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Auffret V, Regueiro A, Del Trigo M, et al. Predictors of early cerebrovascular events in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:673–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Nombela-Franco L, Rodés-Cabau J, DeLarochellière R, et al. Predictive factors, efficacy, and safety of balloon post-dilation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloonexpandable valve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:499–512.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Hahn RT, Pibarot P, Webb J, et al. Outcomes with postdilation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER I trial (placement of aortic transcatheter valve). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:781–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Khalique OK, Hahn RT, Gada H, et al. Quantity and location of aortic valve complex calcification predicts severity and location of paravalvular regurgitation and frequency of post-dilation after balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:885–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Seiffert M, Fujita B, Avanesov M, et al. Device landing zone calcification and its impact on residual regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with different devices. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;17:576–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Watanabe Y, Lefèvre T, Arai T, et al. Can we predict postprocedural paravalvular leak after Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter aortic valve implantation? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;86:144–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Di Martino LFM, Soliman OII, van Gils L, et al. Relation between calcium burden, echocardiographic stent frame eccentricity and paravalvular leakage after corevalve transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;18:648–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Pavicevic J, Nguyen TDL, Caliskan E, et al. Aortic valve calcium score is a significant predictor for the occurrence of postinterventional paravalvular leakage after transcatheter aortic valve implantation – Results from a single center analysis of 260 consecutive patients. Int J Cardiol 2015;181:185–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Abramowitz Y, Jilaihawi H, Chakravarty T, et al. Balloonexpandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with extreme aortic valve calcification. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;87:1173–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Tamburino C, Capodanno D, Ramondo A, et al. Incidence and predictors of early and late mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 663 patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 2011;123:299–308.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Herrmann HC, Thourani VH, Kodali SK, et al. One-year clinical outcomes with SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk and inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 2016;134:130–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Kodali S, Pibarot P, Douglas PS, et al. Paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Edwards sapien valve in the PARTNER trial: characterizing patients and impact on outcomes. Eur Heart J 2015;36:449–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Kapadia SR, Leon MB, Makkar RR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2485–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2477–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016;387:2218–25.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Généreux P, Head SJ, Hahn R, et al. Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the new Achilles’ heel? A comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1125–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, et al. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1705–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Little SH, Oh JK, Gillam L, et al. Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in patients at high risk for surgery: a study of echocardiographic change and risk prediction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Ludman PF, Moat N, de Belder MA, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the United Kingdom: temporal trends, predictors of outcome, and 6-year follow-up: a report from the UK Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Registry, 2007 to 2012. Circulation 2015;131:1181–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Butter C, Bramlage P, Rudolph T, et al. Balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation via the transfemoral route with or without pre-dilation of the aortic valve - rationale and design of a multicentre registry (EASE-IT TF). BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2016;16:223.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Bramlage P, Strauch J, Schröfel H. Balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without pre-dilation of the aortic valve - rationale and design of a multicenter registry (EASE-IT). BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2014;14:160.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Ferrera C, Nombela-Franco L, Garcia E, et al. Clinical and hemodynamic results after direct transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus pre-implantation balloon aortic valvuloplasty: A case-matched analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016. epub ahead of press
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Toutouzas K, Latsios G, Stathogiannis K, et al. One-year outcomes after direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a self-expanding bioprosthesis. A two-center international experience. Int J Cardiol 2016;202:631–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Kochman J, Kołtowski L, Huczek Z, et al. Direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation – one-year outcome of a case control study. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2014;10:250–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Hamm K, Reents W, Zacher M, et al. Omission of predilation in balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation: retrospective analysis in a large volume center. EuroIntervention 2017. epub ahead of press
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Aggarwal SK, Delahunty N, Wong B, et al. Balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves can be successfully and safely implanted transfemorally without balloon valvuloplasty. J Interv Cardiol 2016;29:319–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Kempfert J, Meyer A, Kim W-K, et al. First experience without pre-ballooning in transapical aortic valve implantation: a propensity score-matched analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015;47:31–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Wong SC, Pawar S, Minutello RM, et al. Device success and 30-day clinical outcome in patients undergoing preimplant valvuloplasty in transfemoral versus omitting valvuloplasty in transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:1111–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Fiorina C, Maffeo D, Curello S, et al. Direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation with self-expandable bioprosthesis: feasibility and safety. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2014;15:200–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Bandali A, Parry-Williams G, Kassam A, et al. Direct transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon pre-dilatation using the Edwards Sapien XT valve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;88:978–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Van Linden A, Kim W-K, Liebetrau C, et al. Simplified transapical aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN 3 valve without preballooning. Innovations (Phila);10:406–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Conradi L, Schaefer A, Seiffert M, et al. Transfemoral TAVI without pre-dilatation using balloon-expandable devices: a case-matched analysis. Clin Res Cardiol 2015;104:735–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Conradi L, Seiffert M, Schirmer J, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation without prior balloon aortic valvuloplasty: feasible and safe. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:61–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Möllmann H, Kim W-K, Kempfert J, et al. Transfemoral aortic valve implantation of Edwards SAPIEN XT without predilatation is feasible. Clin Cardiol 2014;37:667–71.
    Crossref | PubMed