Management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in collaboration with the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery.

Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) is a frequent finding in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), and the management of these two conditions becomes of particular importance with the extension of the procedure to younger and lower-risk patients. Yet, the preprocedural diagnostic evaluation and the indications for treatment of significant CAD in TAVI candidates remain a matter of debate. In this clinical consensus statement, a group of experts from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery aims to review the available evidence on the topic and proposes a rationale for the diagnostic evaluation and indications for percutaneous revascularisation of CAD in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter treatment. Moreover, it also focuses on commissural alignment of transcatheter heart valves and coronary re-access after TAVI and redo-TAVI.

Patient-Specific Computer Simulation in TAVR With the Self-Expanding Evolut R Valve.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the added value and predictive power of the TAVIguide (Added Value of Patient-Specific Computer Simulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) software in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Optimal outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may become more important as TAVR shifts toward low-risk patients. Patient-specific computer simulation is able to provide prediction of outcome after TAVR. Its clinical role and validation of accuracy, however, have not yet been studied prospectively. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted among 80 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with the Evolut R valve. Simulation was performed in 42 patients and no simulation in 38. A comparison between the valve size (decision 1) and target depth of implantation selected by the operator on the basis of multislice computed tomography and the valve size (decision 2) and target depth of implantation selected after simulation were the primary endpoints. Predictive power was examined by comparing the simulated and observed degree of aortic regurgitation. RESULTS: Decision 2 differed from decision 1 in 1 of 42 patients because of predicted paravalvular leakage, and changes in valve type occurred in 2 of 42. In 39 of 42 patients, decisions 1 and 2 were similar. Target depth of implantation differed in 7 of 42 patients after simulation (lower in 4 and higher in 3). In 16 of 42 patients, simulation affected the TAVR procedure; in 9, the operator avoided additional measures to achieve the target depth of implantation, and in 7 patients, additional measures were performed. There was a trend toward a higher degree of predicted than observed aortic regurgitation (17.5 vs. 12 ml/s; p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific computer simulation did not affect valve size selection but did affect the selection of the target depth of implantation and the execution of TAVR to achieve the desired target depth of implantation.