Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘TAVR’

Preamble : The Lubs & Dubs

The lubs and dubs, along with some added sounds are the only language, the heart can speak in health and distress. It’s a worrying story altogether, gradually many of us are becoming “cardiac illiterates” as we struggle to read , its gentle communication. it is not our fault. Stethoscopes are reduced to become a social marker of being a doctor. We may excuse ourselves, even if we can’t differentiate a systolic from diastolic murmur, after all, hand held echo machines, instantly tell the diagnosis.

( After reading this article, fellows are expected to understand why the first heart sound in MR (ie the lubs,) are mostly soft,  some times normal or even loud in certain conditions)

Now, let us go to the mitral valve dynamics

How many of us are aware, there is a big science of physics and biology operating when the mitral valve perfectly closes at the level of the annulus, with each systole , balancing different sets of known and unknown forces.

In this article, we will see how these two sets of forces mitral valve tethering and closing forces balance out each other to seal the mitral valve and what happens when the forces begin to fight each other.

Balance of Tethering and Closing Forces in Mitral Valve Coaptation

The mitral valve (MV) coaptation refers to the edge-to-edge apposition of the anterior and posterior leaflets during systole, ensuring a competent seal to prevent regurgitation. This process is governed by a delicate balance between tethering forces (which restrain leaflet motion to prevent prolapse into the left atrium) and closing forces (which approximate the leaflets for sealing).

  • Tethering forces: These are primarily transmitted through the chordae tendineae from the papillary muscles (PMs) to the leaflet free edges and bellies, pulling the leaflets apically and laterally toward the left ventricular (LV) apex. They arise from:
  • Closing forces: These are driven by the transmitral pressure gradient during systole, where rising LV pressure (generated by LV contraction) exceeds left atrial (LA) pressure, pushing the leaflets together. The force is proportional to the LV dP/dt (rate of pressure rise) and peaks in midsystole.
  • Balancing mechanism: Coaptation occurs when closing forces overcome tethering, enabling leaflets to meet with sufficient overlap (coaptation length >8 mm typically). Imbalance favors regurgitation: excessive tethering (e.g., from PM displacement) causes apical tenting and incomplete closure; insufficient closing (e.g., low LV contractility) fails to seal the orifice. In health, the forces are synchronized with systole, with closing forces dominating midsystole to minimize the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA).

Paradoxes in the Balancing Mechanism

MV mechanics exhibit several counterintuitive paradoxes, where adaptive or dysfunctional responses lead to outcomes opposite to expectations. These highlight the interplay of geometry, contractility, and force transmission:

  1. Paradoxical systolic PM elongation: Normally, PMs shorten during systole (1 cm) to offset annular descent and maintain annulopapillary balance. Post-myocardial infarction (MI), scarred or ischemic PMs paradoxically elongate driven by transmitral pressure tension. This decreases annulopapillary distance, attenuates tethering, and reduces MR severity—contrary to the intuition that PM weakness worsens regurgitation. However, extreme elongation risks leaflet prolapse, flipping the paradox to increased MR.
  2. PM dysfunction attenuating ischemic MR: In isolated dysfunction, reduced PM contraction intuitively increases slack chordae and prolapse risk. Yet, in localized basal inferior LV remodeling, PM dysfunction (measured as reduced longitudinal systolic strain) inversely correlates with MR fraction attenuating MR by limiting excessive tethering. This holds only with certain level of remodeling . Gross and asymmetrical remodeling can exaggerate tethering and increase the MR.
  3. Dynamic EROA reduction despite peak driving pressure: MR often peaks early systole (when closing forces are low and tethering dominates) but paradoxically decreases midsystole, even as LV pressure (driving force) maximizes. This occurs because rising closing forces (transmitral gradient) overcome tethering, shrinking the orifice mimicking reduced regurgitation when it should worsen.Thgis mechansim can some times seen when MR jet is bi-fid in doppler tracing.
  4. Imbalanced chordal forces causing focal prolapse: In acute ischemic MR (e.g., posterior wall ischemia), tethering redistributes unevenly: tension drops in ischemic-side chordae but rises on the nonischemic side causing focal tenting and relative prolapse on the ischemic commissure. This creates an eccentric jet despite global LV contraction.

This article clearly tells us that the forces acting on the mitral valve apparatus are so complex. The conceptual model of tethering and closing forces may be oversimplified. There are variable interactions between them. More importantly, the atrial forces also influence and intrude into these forces. Realize that MV competence is not just about force magnitude but their vectorial distribution and timing, often amplified by LV geometry changes.

Final message

As cardiologists and surgeons, we must realize the fact, how important it is to analyze both anatomy and the physiological impact when we rush to clip, cut, or repair it with annuloplasty and subvalvular interventions.

*Sometimes, it might even be tempting to do mitral valve replacement, even when it is not indicated, because we need not bother about all these dizzy mechanics and physics of MR jet forces.

Read Full Post »

“Every Interventional Cardiologist, realistically, need to be a preventive neurologist too!”

The concept a permanent ascending aortic porous membrane filter (PAA-PMF) is an extrapolation of the idea of mechanical thrombus capture, as proven by IVC filters for venous embolism prevention . Also we do have and temporary intra-aortic filters like Sentinel , Embol-X for arterial particulate capture.

Device Concept

The PAA-PMF would feature a self-expanding nitinol frame, with a fully porous head end. The device can be heparin-coated polyester or polyurethane mesh membrane, deployable via 12-14 Fr femoral sheath, similar to IVC filter designs but should be optimized for aortic pressures. Suggested pore size of 100-125 μm targets >100 μm emboli, akin to Embol-X filtration efficacy in capturing 95% of particulates (atheroma, fibrin) during aortic declamping. The essential requirement is that the porous membrane should not create an impedance gradient. How feasible it is, to be tested. Conical shape, the radial force will ensure good ascending aortic wall apposition.

Device location site

Site of placement is critical. Proximal ascending aorta, 2-3 cm distal to sinotubular junction/proximal to brachiocephalic trunk, as in Embol-X for maximal cardiac/aortic debris interception without coronary/arch compromis

Potential indications

(Only in patients with very high risk of cardioembolic stroke)

1.Chronic stroke reduction in patients with MVR/AVR/TAVR/MAVR

2.High-risk mobile LV mural thrombus

3.Chronic AF with visible and invisible clots in LA

4..High-risk procoagulant conditions with recurrent embolism

Definite Risks

*Occlusion and hemodynamic compromise is the most crucial issue. However, when compared to the incidence IVC filter clogging, the high pressure aortic flow is likely to self-wash the device (as happens in a prosthetic aortic valve)

Trapped emboli may enter into coronary circulation is a possibility. Putting a filter at ascending aorta precludes left heart catheterization.

*Migration , Hemolysis are other expected complications.

Intense anticoagulation would be required to prevent occlusion of the filte . (Still, stopping it temporarily doe not not increase the risk of stroke)

Final message : Is it Worth for a Preclinical trial ?

We do have temporary aortic filters. The concept of permanent or semi-permanent filters is largely theoretical, with potential risks being more than benefits. The device can take care of only cardio-aortic embolic stroke.

However, considering so many complex, risky intracardiac and intravascular devices being tested on a daily basis, it is not a big deal for the current generation of interventional cardiologists to try this.

More than our interventional appetite, we really need a device that prevents stroke in a permanent fashion. It is definitely worthy to do initial studies in a porcine model. Would be glad , if Edwards, Abbot or Medtronic and other new Innovators respond to this.

References

  1. Shammas NW, et al. Intra-Aortic Filtration: Capturing Particulate Emboli during Cardiopulmonary Bypass. NIH. 2004. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1351822/
  2. Shammas NW, et al. Embol-X Intra-Aortic Filtration System: Capturing Particulate Emboli in the Cardiac Surgery Patient. NIH. 2004. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4682540/
  3. PCI Mag. Revolutionary Anti-Thrombogenic Coating for Stents Promises Safer, Faster Healing. 2024. Available from: https://www.pcimag.com/articles/112641-revolutionary-anti-thrombogenic-coating-for-stents-promises-safer-faster-healing
  4. Kaufman JA, et al. Radiologists’ Field Guide to Retrievable and Convertible Inferior Vena Cava Filters. AJR. 2019. Available from: https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.19.21722
  5. Cleveland Clinic. Vena Cava Filters: Purpose & Placement. 2025. Available from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17609-vena-cava-filters
  6. Bilal H, et al. Complications of Inferior Vena Caval Filters. NIH. 1997. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3036364/
  7. Alpaslan M, et al. Embolic Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. NIH. 2025. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12194329/
  8. Almanza DC, et al. Comparative Review of Large Animal Models for Suitability of Cardiovascular Devices. IJMS. 2024. Available from: https://ijms.info/IJMS/article/view/763/1645
  9. Mohammadi H, et al. Simulation of blood flow in the abdominal aorta considering hyperelasticity of the wall. J Carme. 2021. Available from: https://jcarme.sru.ac.ir/article_1223.html
  10. Ketha S, et al. Comparative Review of Large Animal Models for Suitability of Cardiovascular Devices. IJMS. 2019. Available from: https://ijms.info/IJMS/article/download/763/1644?inline=1

Read Full Post »

TAVI is becoming like PCI equivalent of aortic valve. The procedure is nothing but stenting and plastering the aortic prothesis ,with all the native diseased aortic leaflet in-situ. Pre procedure CT aortic valve mapping (rather the entire Aorta) is the key to successful outcome.

While the calcium is the essential bonding force of the valve to the aortic annulus, it can also play some serious spoilsport, along with native leaflet debri . Many times, the hardened calcium are like like sharp 3 dimensional knife hanging over there in root of aorta.

Every TAVI operator has this ligering fear . Will that speck of calcium “ice berg”, hiding 2 mm above the NCC, hit the AV node, when I deploy the valve ? Will the distorted leaflet jump few mm above and hit the coronary ostia , however high it may be. (After all , the exact final landing zone is not determined by the operator , but by the ROC curve)

Every severely calcified valve experiences a Titanic effect , fortunately most valves escape.

Realise how important the accuracy these softwares are .It is just a matter of few mm error . . Apart form calcium distribution pattern , more fundamental parameters like the annular size, shape, and optimal imaging angle are critically important. Here is brief report on various software packages available for pre procedure planning of TAVR.

Image courtesy : Thoracic Key  Assessment of aortic valve calcification.The stretch view shows dense calcification of the right coronary cusp, noncoronary cusp, and left coronary cusp. The stretch view (A), angiographic overlay (B), cross-sectional view (C), and “hockey puck” view (D) allow quantification of the calcium in the aortic valve.

The following table was curated from the respective company websites. Any further details can visit them.

SoftwareVendor/DeveloperKey Features for TAVR Pre-Planning
3mensio Structural HeartPie Medical ImagingDedicated TAVR module for automated aortic root analysis, valve sizing, and access route planning. Provides 3D visualization, calcium scoring, and virtual valve implantation. Widely used for precise measurements and procedural simulation.
OsiriX MD / HorosPixmeo (OsiriX) / Open-source (Horos)DICOM viewer with 3D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) tools for manual valve sizing, annulus measurement, and aortic root analysis. Horos is a free alternative. Supports plugins like ProSizeAV for semi-automated sizing.
syngo.via CT Cardiac Function – Valve PilotSiemens HealthineersSemi-automated workflow for aortic valve assessment, angulation prediction, and device sizing. Includes valve pilot tools for efficient CT analysis.
HeartNavigatorPhilips HealthcareAutomated or semi-automated CT processing for TAVR, including aortic root segmentation, access route simulation, and procedural guidance. Often compared for reliability in measurements.
Valve Assist 2GE HealthcareAI-assisted tool for valve sizing, CT analysis, and planning efficiency. Focuses on automating measurements to reduce manual effort.
Mimics Enlight / Mimics PlannerMaterialiseCloud-based 3D modeling software with automated workflows for structural heart interventions, including TAVR-specific measurements, virtual valve implantation, and 3D printing support. Includes AI for segmentation.
cvi42Circle Cardiovascular ImagingAdvanced CT tools for interventional planning, including TAVR, with automation for aortic valve assessment, flow quantification, and structural heart disease management.
Intuition TAVR PlanningTeraReconComprehensive package for aortic root segmentation, centerline extraction, and pre-operative measurements. Supports advanced 3D/4D visualization for TAVR workflows.
Vitrea CT TAVR PlanningCanon Medical (Vital Images)AI-leveraged application for automated TAVR assessment, including valve sizing, access planning, and post-operative evaluation. Integrates deep learning for efficiency.

Some questions

1.Which one is most popular ?

With out doubt 3mensio is top software because of its neutrality between various TAVR valve and wide spread usage and comparisons.

2.What is the cost of these software ?

They are substantial has a monthly subscription model. 3Mensio pricing starts at approximately $500/month for 1 user, $4,000/month for 10 users.

3.Is there any Freeware for assessing Aortic root ?

Yes . OsiriX MD / Horos is a free ware, but not getting sufficient attention.

4.What is the error rate of these software ? since they are offline and often images are machine extrapolated ?

Error rate in software are well not reported. (Can’t expect the vendors to do it !) However, It must be acknowledged they are real because of the offline nature of image processing .These tools process DICOM data, in pre-trained algorithms. Errors can arise from poor CT input (e.g., motion artifacts) or extrapolation in 3D reconstruction (e.g., interpolating between slices), but studies show minimal impact with high-quality scans.

Common Error Sources: User variability, calcium blooming artifacts, or phase-specific differences in dynamic CT.

Clinical Implications: Errors in sizing can lead to complications like paravalvular leak (if undersized) or embolism (if oversized), but validation shows risks are low (e.g., <2 mm differences rarely affect outcomes). Multi-reader or expert double check is encouraged to improve accuracy.

Read Full Post »

This image comes with courtesy of the Journal of SCAI Jai Parekh, Vikram Sharma, Jared Robl,et al Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 3 (2024) 101310

What is your diagnosis ?

I thought, it was pacemaker extrusion. It was indeed a close answer, still terribly wrong. It is an intentional exterior placement of a permanent pacemaker generator mimicking an extrusion due to pocket infection. Here is a patient, where a permanent pacemaker was kept temporarily for a few weeks or a month in high-risk reversible complete heart block situations. This typically occurs after an inferior posterior myocardial infarction, drug-induced CHB.

Currently, with the arrrival of TAVR, CHB has beceome a glamorous complication and is getting wider attention. This happens due to the anatomical uncertainties where the inferior landing zone of TAVI is pre-destained and is beyond our control. This is more true in the self expanding Core valve platform . When the lower edge treaspass the non-coronary cusp- membranous septal junction, it hits perfectly the compact post-penetrating bundle of His, confering a high risk of CHB.

Still, the good thing is some of them recover as the pressure edema regress .Putting a PPM in all such patients was considered mandatory or even a vanity in the past. Now we realise it is an additional metallic luggage in an already strained heart, Temporary-PPM the oxymoronic innovation is perfect option in this setting.

Final message

A typical external temporary pacemaker can be kept for up to 2 weeks maximum. (We have kept it for a month or so) It’s done via the jugular, subclavian, or even femoral. If the underlying condition demands more time for recovery of CHB, many do a regular permanent pacemaker.

Now , we have this unique option of using PPM as TPM. This is not a new concept though. It was used few decades ago .Has come back in more centers .Thanks to TAVI and its specific complications.

Reference

1.Rodés-Cabau J. Ellenbogen K.A. Krahn A.D. et al. Management of conduction disturbances associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 74: 1086-1106.

2. Leong D, Sovari AA, Ehdaie A, Chakravarty T, Liu Q, Jilaihawi H, Makkar R, Wang X, Cingolani E, Shehata M. Permanent-temporary pacemakers in the management of patients with conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Jun;52(1):111-116. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0345-z. Epub 2018 Mar 12. PMID: 29532275.

Read Full Post »

The concept of TAVR(Trancutaneous aortic valve replacement ) is trying hard  to prevail over surgical aortic valve replacement .Two companies Medtronic and Edwards life have their products (Core and Sapiens)  tested and used with varying success.Meanwhile, Boston scientific has come out with a new one , Lotus valve made with stainless steel and bovine pericardium.

 

lotus valve tavr

Lotus valve  seems to have a distinct  advantage* (over the Core and Sapiens ) in terms of easy delivery and adjustment (or retrieval ) of valve till  final position and efficient adoptive steel technology in preventing para-valvular leak.

* Outcome awaited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV2kfUoLp90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inc7v-Ouwjg

Human  trials has started with lotus valve in USA 2014.The REPRISE III trial would compare  one to one Lotus vs core valve . Results will be out by 2017.Unlike many interventions the utility value and long-term outcome of  TAVR  seem to be genuine and patients  waiting for aortic valve surgery can look forward to this as a genuine non surgical alternative.

Responding to this , Medtronic and Edwards are  improving upon core valve with Evolute R /Engager and SAPIEN3 , expected  to give a tough time for LOTUS.

Reference

1.RESPOND registry , REPRISE 1, 2 and 3 trials

2.A review article on TAVR 

Read Full Post »