Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation(TAVI)for the treatment of primary aortic valve regurgitation(NAVR)and to compare the difference in the choice of prosthetic valve size and the difference in complications with aortic stenosis(AS).Methods According to the definition of Valve Academic Research Consortium(VARC-3),143 patients with NAVR/AS treated with TAVI and patients with NAVR treated with surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR)at Tongji Hospital,Tongji Medical College,Huazhong University of Science and Technology,China,from March 2019 to September 2024 were selected,and clinical data on baseline,perioperative,and primary endpoint events were were retrospectively collected and compared.Results Forty-three patients with NAVR were treated with TAVI,with a device success rate of 86.0％and a surgical success rate of 95.3％.Subgroup comparisons:(1)NAVR-TAVI group than NAVR-SAVR group:patients in the TAVI group had a significantly shorter operative time than those in the SAVR group(P＜0.001);complete left bundle branch block was more likely to occur after TAVI(P=0.042),and complete right bundle branch block was more likely to occur after SAVR(P=0.044).SAVR postoperatively The incidence of congestive heart failure was higher(P=0.013),and the mortality rate was significantly higher in the SAVR group than in the TAVI group(P=0.019).(2)NAVR-TAVI group than AS-TAVI group:the differences in access selection,THV size[28(22,34)mm vs.24(22,32)mm,P=0.044]and proportion of THV overdiameter[14％(7％,20％)vs.7％(3％,11％),P＜0.001]were statistically significant.patients in AS and NAVR groups had 1 case of permanent pacing after TAVI treatment.In the AS and NAVR groups,there was 1 case of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI.2 patients in the AS group were converted to surgical treatment,and 6 patients died.Conclusions The use of"off-label"(transfemoral)and"on-label"(transapical)TAVI devices(both from domestic sources)is safer than SAVR for the treatment of NAVR,especially in elderly and high-risk patients.Compared with patients with AS treated with TAVI,larger diameter annulas are usually selected for NAVR,with higher rates of valve migration,but overall safety and efficacy are comparable to AS.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation(TAVI)for the treatment of primary aortic valve regurgitation(NAVR)and to compare the difference in the choice of prosthetic valve size and the difference in complications with aortic stenosis(AS).Methods According to the definition of Valve Academic Research Consortium(VARC-3),143 patients with NAVR/AS treated with TAVI and patients with NAVR treated with surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR)at Tongji Hospital,Tongji Medical College,Huazhong University of Science and Technology,China,from March 2019 to September 2024 were selected,and clinical data on baseline,perioperative,and primary endpoint events were were retrospectively collected and compared.Results Forty-three patients with NAVR were treated with TAVI,with a device success rate of 86.0％and a surgical success rate of 95.3％.Subgroup comparisons:(1)NAVR-TAVI group than NAVR-SAVR group:patients in the TAVI group had a significantly shorter operative time than those in the SAVR group(P＜0.001);complete left bundle branch block was more likely to occur after TAVI(P=0.042),and complete right bundle branch block was more likely to occur after SAVR(P=0.044).SAVR postoperatively The incidence of congestive heart failure was higher(P=0.013),and the mortality rate was significantly higher in the SAVR group than in the TAVI group(P=0.019).(2)NAVR-TAVI group than AS-TAVI group:the differences in access selection,THV size[28(22,34)mm vs.24(22,32)mm,P=0.044]and proportion of THV overdiameter[14％(7％,20％)vs.7％(3％,11％),P＜0.001]were statistically significant.patients in AS and NAVR groups had 1 case of permanent pacing after TAVI treatment.In the AS and NAVR groups,there was 1 case of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI.2 patients in the AS group were converted to surgical treatment,and 6 patients died.Conclusions The use of"off-label"(transfemoral)and"on-label"(transapical)TAVI devices(both from domestic sources)is safer than SAVR for the treatment of NAVR,especially in elderly and high-risk patients.Compared with patients with AS treated with TAVI,larger diameter annulas are usually selected for NAVR,with higher rates of valve migration,but overall safety and efficacy are comparable to AS.

Objective    To report our clinical experience and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute Stanford type A dissection using ascending aorta replacement combined with implantation of a fenestrated stent-graft of the entire aortic arch through a minimally invasive technique. Methods    From 2016 to 2020 in our hospital, 24 patients (17 males and 7 females, aged 45-72 years) with complicated Stanford type A aortic dissection, underwent replacement of the proximal ascending aorta with TEVAR. None of the patients with dissection involved the three branches of the superior arch, and all patients were replaced with artificial blood vessels of the ascending aorta under non-hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass, preserving the arch and the three branches above the arch, and individualized stent graft fenestration. Results    Surgical technical success rate was 100.0%. There was no intraoperative complication or evidence of endo-leak in 1 month postoperatively. Hospital stay was 10±5 d. During postoperative follow-up, the stent was unobstructed without displacement, the preserved branch of the aortic arch was unobstructed, and the true lumen of the descending aorta was enlarged. Conclusion     This hybrid technique by using TEVAR with fenestrated treatment is a minimally invasive and effective method to treat high-risk patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.