Differences in Frame Geometry Between Balloon-expandable and Self-expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves and Association With XXXX .

@entity1 @entity337
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: @entity1 - and procedure-related factors are known to be associated with @entity337 after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nevertheless, this entity may also be caused by a specific device-host interaction due to the biomechanical properties of the valves, independently of clinical factors. We sought to elucidate the role of frame geometry in the occurrence of @entity337 after Medtronic CoreValve(  ) and Edwards SAPIEN(  ) valve implantation. METHODS: We conducted an observational study encompassing 134 @entity1 undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve(  ) and Edwards SAPIEN(  ) valve. Frame analysis was performed at 3 predefined levels of both valves by rotational angiography using dedicated motion compensation software. A distinction was made between @entity1 with no-to-mild and moderate-to-severe @entity337 by echocardiography. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 valves. Despite greater use of predilation in the CoreValve(  ) (95.2% vs 82.0%; P=.012), more oversizing (perimeter, 114  7% vs 103  7%; P<.001), and the same depth of implantation (noncoronary sinus, 7  4 vs 8  2mm; left coronary sinus, 8  4 vs 8  2mm), it was less expanded and more eccentric than the Edwards SAPIEN(  ) (83  7% vs 92  4%; P<.001 and 82  8% vs 95  3%; P<.001, respectively) and when eccentricity was adjusted for the @entity1 's annulus eccentricity (4  13% vs 21  11%; P<.001). Eccentricity and adjusted eccentricity were associated with moderate-to-severe @entity337 . CONCLUSIONS: Independently of @entity1 - and procedure-related factors, there is a device-specific device-host interaction that explains @entity337 after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
