P913What can we expect after valve-in-valve procedures in failed transcatheter aortic valves?

Abstract

Abstract Background/Purpose With the growing use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), we need to determine if repeat TAVR (TAV-in-TAV) is comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement followed by TAVR (TAV-in-SAV). Although TAV-in-SAV procedures were shown to provide an almost complete sealing of paravalvular leakage at the expense of elevated gradients, data for TAV-in-TAV are lacking. Hence, we compared echocardiographic and clinical outcome in all TAV-in-TAV and TAV-in-SAV procedures in our institution between Oct. 2007 and July 2017. Methods 130 consecutive valve-in-valve patients out of 2351 TAVR-patients were identified. 24 patients were excluded. Patient data were analysed from our prospectively collected, institutional database. 93% underwent routine out-patient follow-up at 12 months. Results 75 TAV-in-SAV (75±8 years, male 60%; STS score 5.2±4.0%) and 31 TAV-in-TAV patients (78±8 years, male 65%; STS score 4.6±2.8%) formed the final study population. The type of TAV was similarly distributed in both groups (self-/balloon-expandable valves [%] 57/43 vs. 61/39) with transfemoral being the most frequent access site (68% vs. 87%). The mode of prosthesis failure was mainly stenosis in the TAV-in-SAV group (77%), whereas it was mainly intraoperative paravalvular regurgitation (90%) in the TAV-in-TAV group. 10% TAV-in-TAV patients (78±10 years, 33% male, STS score 5.1±1.5%) underwent redo-TAVR for prosthesis-degeneration after a mean time of 2614±862 days. The TAV-in-TAV group (90% single session vs. 10% staged: mean gradient 10±4 mmHg vs. 15±3 mmHg, p=0.096; aortic valve area 1.62±0.36 cm2 vs. 1.45±0.18 cm2, p=0.240) showed lower gradients and larger aortic valve areas (Table 1). No major intraprocedural complications occurred in either group. 30-day mortality was 0%. Table 1 75 TAV-in-SAV discharge 31 TAV-in-TAV discharge p-value 69 TAV-in-SAV 12mFU 30 TAV-in-TAV 12mFU p-value AVA (cm2) * 1.18±0.32 1.61±0.35 <0.001† 1.21±0.36 1.63±0.43 <0.001† Peak Gradient (mmHg) 33±14 23±8 <0.001† 31±14 21±8 <0.001† Mean Gradient (mmHg) 19±8 12±5 <0.001† 18±9 11±4 <0.001† AR (0–3)** 0.4±0.5 0.8±0.7 0.003† 0.4±0.5 0.8±0.6 0.001† LV ejection fraction (%) 49±12 49±16 0.970 54±12 50±10 0.081 *AVA = Aortic valve area; **AR = Aortic regurgitation. 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe. †p<0,05 significant. Conclusion Indications for TAV-in-TAV differ from those for TAV-in-SAV. TAV-in-TAV results in significantly lower gradients and larger aortic valve areas with no relevant aortic regurgitation. Accordingly, failed TAV valves may be treated with TAV-in-TAV in the future.