Skip to main content

Table 2 Procedural details

From: Does the “obesity paradox” exist after transcatheter aortic valve implantation?

Variable BMI (kg/m2) p-value
 < 21.9 (n = 27) 21.9–27.0 (n = 55)  > 27.0 (n = 27)
Implanted valve 1.000
 VitaFlow®a 23 (85.2%) 48 (87.3%) 23 (85.2%)  
 J-Valveb 4 (14.8%) 7 (12.7%) 4 (14.8%)  
Implanted valve size (mm)  
 21 (VitaFlow®) 8 (29.6%) 16 (29.1%) 6 (22.2%) 0.532
 24 (VitaFlow®) 14 (51.9%) 25 (45.4%) 12 (44.5%)  
 27 (VitaFlow®) 5 (18.5%) 14 (25.5%) 7 (25.9%)  
 30 (VitaFlow®) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (7.4%)  
Vascular access
 Transfemoral 22 (81.5%) 48 (87.3%) 24 (88.9%) 0.762
 Transapical 5 (18.5%) 7 (12.7%) 3 (11.1%)  
Device success 25 (92.6%) 54 (98.2%) 25 (92.6%) 0.280
2nd valve 2 (7.4%) 2 (3.6%) 1 (3.7%) 0.836
Postdilatation 3 (11.1%) 6 (10.9%) 4 (14.8%) 0.936
Valve embolization 1 (3.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.495
Fluoroscopy time (min) 17.8 ± 7.1 15.9 ± 7.0 16.2 ± 8.8 0.638
Total contrast used (ml) 85.9 ± 47.6 89.2 ± 42.8 90.1 ± 40.2 0.236
TEE postprocedural PVL
 None/trace 22 (81.5%) 43 (78.2%) 21 (77.8%) 1.000
 Mild 5 (18.5%) 11 (20.0%) 5 (18.5%)  
 Moderate 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (3.7%)  
 Severe 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)  
Postprocedural aortic valve gradient (mm Hg) 8.5 ± 4.6 9.5 ± 5.0 8.5 ± 5.0 0.383
  1. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviations (SD) or number (%). Chi-square or Fisher test for categorical variables and t text for continuous variables
  2. PVL perivalvular leak, TEE transesophageal echocardiography
  3. aVitaFlow®Transcatheter Aortic Valve, Micro Port, ShangHai, China
  4. bJ-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve, JC Medical, China