Coronary access after repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients of small body size: A simulation study

Background: Coronary artery access after repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAV-in-TAV) is reportedly more difficult because leaflet displacement of the first transcatheter heart valve (THV) impairs coronary cannulation; however, its effects in small patients are unknown. This study aimed to simulate coronary accessibility after TAV-in-TAV in patients of small body size.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed computed tomography scans after initial THV implantation and classified patients by THV and coronary artery location, valve-to-aorta distance, and valve-to-coronary distance. Risks were compared between the SAPIEN and CoreValve/Evolut series, among THV generations, and between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in the CoreValve/Evolut series.

Results: A total of 254 patients (SAPIEN series, n = 164; CoreValve/Evolut series, n = 90) were enrolled. The average body surface area of the patients was 1.44 m². Patients were classified as "feasible" (26%), "theoretically feasible with low risk" (19.7%), "theoretically feasible with high risk" (8.7%), or "unfeasible" (45.8%). The "unfeasible" rate was significantly higher in the CoreValve/Evolut series than in the SAPIEN series (78.9% vs 26.2%; P < .001). A significantly higher "unfeasible" rate was identified in the current model of SAPIEN (SAPIEN, 8.3%; SAPIENXT, 1.8%; SAPIEN3, 48.2%; P < .001), but not in the CoreValve/Evolut series (CoreValve, 83.3%; Evolut R, 80.0%; Evolut PRO, 71.4%; P = .587). Patients with a bicuspid aortic valve had a lower "unfeasible" rate compared to those with a tricuspid aortic valve (60.0% vs 86.2%; P = .014).

Conclusions: Patients of small body size may have a high probability of "unfeasible" coronary access after TAV-in-TAV, especially when treated with current high-frame devices, suggesting the need for careful strategic planning for initial THV implantation.