ライフサイエンスコーパス: transvalvular

1 d a static undersized, continuously inflated transvalvular balloon as a spacer intended physically to

2 Transvalvular device lead implantation in BTV patients w

3 V implantation without undergoing subsequent transvalvular device lead implantation.

4 ical heart failure had Doppler assessment of transvalvular flow and right heart catheterization perfo

5 -gradient severe aortic stenosis exhibit low transvalvular flow rate (Q), while maintaining preserved

6 Transvalvular flow rate determines prognostic value of A

7 an affect mitral valve dynamics, such as the transvalvular flow rate, closure regurgitation and the o

8 AVA can be underestimated at low transvalvular flow rate.

9 al entities might be identified according to transvalvular flow rates and pressure gradients, resulti

10 Knowing that transvalvular flow varies normally within one beat, we d

11 The poor correlation found with transvalvular flow velocities suggests that Ea may be re

12 The respective impacts of transvalvular flow, gradient, sex, and their interaction

13 tive to AS severity is due to a reduction in transvalvular flow.

14 10.0% [95% CI, 4.0-13.9]; P<0.001) and mean transvalvular gradient >=20 mm Hg (2.8% versus 14.3%; ri

15 (</=40%), low-gradient aortic stenosis (mean transvalvular gradient <40 mm Hg and indexed aortic valv

16 Low mean transvalvular gradient (<40 mm Hg) and small aortic valv

17 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P = .001), pre-TAVR mean transvalvular gradient (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = .00

18 At 1 year, mean transvalvular gradient (13.7+/-5.6 versus 11.6+/-5.0 mm

19 calculated indirectly via the peak systolic transvalvular gradient (catheter).

20 BVF resulted in a reduction in the mean transvalvular gradient (from 20.5+/-7.4 to 6.7+/-3.7 mm

21 n=144) and PLG-SAS (n=205) according to mean transvalvular gradient (mean gradient >40 or </=40 mm Hg

22 left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and a low transvalvular gradient (TVG) is associated with improved

23 ncrease in aortic valve area and decrease in transvalvular gradient after TAVR.

24 Transvalvular gradient and effective orifice area at 5 y

25 cellent prosthetic valve function with a low transvalvular gradient and no left ventricular outflow t

26 Doppler-derived measures of peak and mean transvalvular gradient correlated well with reference st

27 Mean aortic transvalvular gradient decreased from 40.5 +/- 13.2 mm H

28 valve area <0.6 cm(2)/m(2)) present with low transvalvular gradient despite a normal left ventricular

29 The mean transvalvular gradient fell in all patients.

30 Correlation between aortic valve weight and transvalvular gradient improved further when gender was

31 c evidence of aortic stenosis had a systolic transvalvular gradient of 57+/-6 mm Hg.

32 V) outflow, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and transvalvular gradient on outcomes following transcathet

33 nce was uniformly good after redo TAVR (mean transvalvular gradient post redo TAVR: 12.5+/-6.1 mm Hg)

34 Hemodynamically, the mean transvalvular gradient significantly decreased after val

35 Mitral transvalvular gradient significantly decreased from 11.1

36 5% CI, 1.18-2.10) faster progression of mean transvalvular gradient than patients in the bottom terti

37 e SEV group exhibited lower mean and maximal transvalvular gradient values (15 +/- 8 mm Hg vs 23 +/-

38 Among patients who survived 5 years, mean transvalvular gradient was 7.5 5.9 mm Hg, and 3.1% had m

39 on and mild hypertrophy, the increase in the transvalvular gradient was associated with elevated eryp

40 zed change in peak aortic jet velocity, mean transvalvular gradient, and aortic valve area.

41 in patients with severe aortic stenosis, low transvalvular gradient, and severe left ventricular dysf

42 has superb hemodynamics in terms of residual transvalvular gradient, effective orifice area, and regr

43 de the following: central flow capacity, low transvalvular gradient, low thrombogenicity, durability,

44 a more physiological flow pattern and lower transvalvular gradient, which may have an important bear

45 sented, on average, 48% of the total resting transvalvular gradient.

46 and comprise approximately half of the total transvalvular gradient.

47 Another limitation is its residual transvalvular gradient.

48 The ACURATE neo presented lower mean transvalvular gradients (9.3 versus 14.5 mm Hg; P<0.001)

49 ht, in general, the women had higher average transvalvular gradients (p </= 0.005) and lower average

50 w-onset atrial fibrillation, higher residual transvalvular gradients (P<0.001), and a lower rate of p

51 with no difference in mean and peak systolic transvalvular gradients 1 year after surgery.

52 with the ACURATE neo valve resulted in lower transvalvular gradients and consequently less prosthesis

53 utcomes and hemodynamic performance with low transvalvular gradients and greater than mild paravalvul

54 heter valves and results in reduced residual transvalvular gradients and increased valve effective or

55 a (EOA) of a prosthetic valve is superior to transvalvular gradients as a measure of valve function,

56 cedure, with no differences in mean and peak transvalvular gradients between both groups (P = 0.41 an

57 Elevated transvalvular gradients during follow-up were observed i

58 the weights of stenotic aortic valves to the transvalvular gradients or to the calculated aortic valv

59 There was a mild but significant increase in transvalvular gradients over time after TAVR.

60 The peak and mean transvalvular gradients were 4.6+/-1.8 mm Hg and 2.6+/-1

61 Transvalvular gradients were measured postoperatively by

62 echocardiographic parameters (decreased peak transvalvular jet velocity and mean transvalvular pressu

63 CI: 1.30-3.65; P = 0.003), the presence of a transvalvular lead (OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.19-3.05; P = 0.0

64 Based on these data, transvalvular lead implantation appears to be an accepta

65 prosthetic TR in patients with and without a transvalvular lead more commonly occurred 2 years or lat

66 w-up of 25 months, in 5 patients (9%) with a transvalvular lead significant (moderate or greater) pro

67 itation compared with BTV patients without a transvalvular lead.

68 LP) therapy by eliminating the presence of a transvalvular lead.

69 dence of TR in BTV patients with and without transvalvular leads (p = 0.45).

70 cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) transvalvular leads in ~35% of patients, with entrapment

71 Pre-operative TR severity and presence of transvalvular leads independently predicted post-operati

72 avalvular leakage was observed in 113 (32%), transvalvular leakage in 47 (13%), and both in 12 (3%).

73 tion (EF) < or =35% and aortic stenosis with transvalvular mean gradient <30 mm Hg underwent aortic v

74 identified and divided in 4 groups based on transvalvular mean gradient (MG), stroke volume index (S

75 ite severe left ventricular dysfunction, low transvalvular mean gradient, and increased operative mor

76 lla, Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a percutaneous transvalvular microaxial flow pump that is currently use

77 The mean transvalvular mitral gradient was </=4 mm Hg in all pati

78 Transvalvular peak pressure drops are routinely assessed

79 valve weight, age at operation, preoperative transvalvular peak pressure gradient, calculated aortic

80 lder age, valves of lighter weight and lower transvalvular peak pressure gradients, and more often si

81 cised stenotic aortic valves to preoperative transvalvular peak systolic gradients and to calculated

82 Preoperative transvalvular peak systolic pressure gradients across st

83 s increased (from <1 g to >6 g), the average transvalvular peak systolic pressure gradients progressi

84 the immediate postimplantation period (mean transvalvular peak velocity=2.6 0.6 versus 2.4 0.6 m/s,

85 onstrated a consistent overestimation of the transvalvular pressure (average of 54%, range 5%-136%) r

86 tretching of valve tissue caused by elevated transvalvular pressure can activate valvular interstitia

87 lve with regurgitation of 4.6 +/- 0.9% and a transvalvular pressure gradient of 4.3 +/- 1.4 millimete

88 sed peak transvalvular jet velocity and mean transvalvular pressure gradient, as well as increased ao

89 Mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients were 4.4 +/- 1.6 mm Hg

90 esophageal echocardiography (TEE) as well as transvalvular pressure measurements during cardiac cathe

91 PV shape changes as a continuous function of transvalvular pressure.

92 escriptors of the murine PV under increasing transvalvular pressures, which demonstrated remarkable c

93 LV unloading with a transvalvular pump (TV-P) but not with venoarterial extr

94 erate prosthetic valve dysfunction (moderate transvalvular regurgitation in 1, moderate stenosis in 1

95 Moderate/severe transvalvular regurgitation was noted in 89 patients (3.

96 No cases of transvalvular regurgitation were seen.

97 by reintervention, adverse hemodynamics, or transvalvular regurgitation.

98 e, 186 patients (52%) had no paravalvular or transvalvular regurgitation.

99 racic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transvalvular Therapeutics Registry were included.

100 timal cusp loading conditions and minimizing transvalvular turbulence.

101 These novel findings identify that transvalvular unloading limits ischemic injury before re

102 metrics in five pigs with dynamic peripheral transvalvular VAD (pVAD) support to the left ventricle.

103 ith those without (annualized change in peak transvalvular velocity 0.30 [IQR: 0.13 to 0.61] vs. 0.01