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 |