Abstract:Abstract Background TAVR has become the standard of care for high–risk patients with aortic stenosis. Considering unique procedural challenges posed by native pure aortic regurgitation (NPAR), our aim was to evaluate early and mid–term results of off–label treatment with new generation devices. Materials and Methods We retrospectively enrolled 61 consecutive patients, who underwent TAVR for NPAR between 2017 and 2023, because deemed ineligible for surgery. Mean logistic and Euroscore II were 17,07±11 and 5,62±5,9, though they did not accurately reflect surgical ineligibility: 7 patients (11,5%) had active cancer and 5 (8,2%) end–stage liver failure. Patients with valve calcifications or stenosis were excluded. A CT scan was obtained to choose device model and size, and access site. A percutaneous VA ECMO support was used in patients at higher risk for hemodynamic instability and procedural failure. Local anesthesia was preferred whenever feasible. Primary endpoints were technical and device success. Secondary endpoint was clinical efficacy at 1 year. Results Mean age was 75,69±9,01. Considering the high–risk population, we adopted local anesthesia in 56 patients (91,8%), reducing ICU admission and stay (27,9% and 1,98±6,51days). Mean aortic annulus diameter, perimeter and area were 25,5±2,16mm, 82,2±5,84mm and 520,04±74,32mm2. Consequently, the most frequently implanted prostheses were Evolut R/Pro 34 (41%), Sapien 3/Ultra 29 (26,2%) and Accurate neo M (9,8%). Approximately half of the population (54,1%) was shortly supported (24,46±24,7 minutes) with fem–fem VA ECMO, reducing hemodynamic instability due to rapid pacing. However, no increase in vascular complication was observed (p=0,58). One intraprocedural death was recorded (1,6%). Although 30–day mortality was 8,2%, primary outcomes were significantly better in the second half of the population (p=0,044 and p=0,036), reflecting the role of a standardized approach and surgeons’ higher expertise. Only 4 paravalvular leaks (6,6%) were detected at 1–month follow–up, 3 mild and 1 moderate (1,6%). Mean follow–up was 18,54±18,48 months. Clinical efficacy at 1 year was 76,3%, available for 38 patients. Conclusions TAVR is still considered an off–label approach for NPAR because of increased stroke volume and absence of annular and leaflet calcification. Nonetheless a standardized approach, with the aid of brief VA ECMO support for complex cases, should be considered a safe and valid option for inoperable patients.

Comparisons of noncoronary sinus pivot implantation (NCPI) and conventional method for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self‐expanding valve in pure aortic regurgitation (PAR)

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: from the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

30-Day Outcomes after Surgical or Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Regurgitation

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure aortic valve regurgitation: “on-label” versus “off-label” use of TAVR devices

Comparison of cusp-overlap projection and standard three-cusp coplanar view during self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

P1852The clinical experience of J valve transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement system in high-risk patients with severe pure aortic regurgitation

SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT FOR NATIVE PURE AORTIC VALVE REGURGITATION: SINGLE–CENTER EXPERIENCE

A study on correlation between preprocedural CT indexes and procedural success rate of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with different self-expanding valves (VitaFlow or VenusA-Valve) in patients with pure native aortic regurgitation

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure native aortic regurgitation with the use of newer- vs. early-generation devices

Incidence and Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Observation of a Chinese Population.

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with a Severe Stenotic Bicuspid Aortic Valve in a Chinese Population.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation: A Systematic Review

Percutaneous versus surgical approach to aortic valve replacement with coronary revascularization: A systematic review andmeta-analysis

A comparison of neurological event and mortality rates between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Pure Native Aortic Regurgitation: Results from a Multicenter Registry Study

A Transcatheter “sandwich” Valve-in-valve Implantation for Pure Aortic Regurgitation: a Report of 2 Cases

An Analysis Regarding the Article: Insight Into the Optimal Timing of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Predominant Aortic Regurgitation with a Self-Expandable Valve

Prior Balloon Valvuloplasty Versus Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the DIRECTAVI Trial

Meta-Analysis Comparing Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Patients With <i>Severe</i> Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock