Comparative differences of mitral valve-in-valve implantation: A new mitral bioprosthesis versus current mosaic and epic valves.

Abstract

ObjectiveEvaluate transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) valve‐in‐valve (VIV) outcomes in three different mitral bioprostheses (of comparable measured internal diameters) under stable hemodynamic and surgical conditions by bench, echocardiographic, computerized tomography (CT), and autopsy comparisons pre‐ and post‐valve implantation in a porcine model under matched controlled conditions.BackgroundImpact of surgical bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV procedures is unknown.MethodsFifteen similar‐sized Yorkshire pigs underwent pre‐procedural CT screening. Twelve had consistent anatomic features and underwent implantation of mitral bioprostheses. Four valves from each of three manufacturers were implanted in randomized fashion: 27‐mm Epic, 27‐mm Mosaic, and 25‐mm Mitris, followed by TMVR VIV with 26 Edwards Sapien3. Post‐VIV, suprasternal TEE studies were performed to assess hemodynamic function, followed by a gated contrast CT. After euthanasia, animals underwent necropsy for anatomic evaluation.ResultsAll 12 animals had successful VIV implantation with no study deaths. The post vivMitris (3.77 ± 0.36)/(2.2 ± 0.25 mmHg) had the lowest peak/mean trans‐mitral gradient and the vivEpic the highest (15.5 ± 2.55)/(7.09 ± 1.13 mmHg). All THVs (transcatheter heart valves) had greatest deformation within the center of the THV frame; with the smallest waist opening area in the vivEpic (329 ± 35.8 mm2) and greatest in the vivMitris (414 ± 33.12 mm2). Bioprosthetic frames without obvious radiopaque markers resulted in the most ventricular implantation of the THV's anteroseptal frame (Epic: −4.52 ± 0.76 mm), versus the most radiopaque bioprosthesis (Mitris: −1.18 ± 2.95 mm), and higher peak LVOT gradients (Epic: 4.82 ± 1.61 mmHg; Mitris: 2.91 ± 1.47 mmHg).ConclusionsThe current study demonstrates marked variations in hemodynamics, THV opening area, and anatomic dimensions among measured similarly sized mitral bioprostheses. These data suggest a critical need for understanding the potential impact of variations in bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV clinical outcomes.