Bioprosthetic Valve Failure Research Articles

Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve

BackgroundTranscatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures. ResultsViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001) at 30 days, which was essentially driven by a higher rate (56.2% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.001) of high residual gradient (mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg). Despite a trend for higher 30-day mortality in the Redo-SAVR vs. ViV-TAVR group (8.7% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 3.70 [0.77-17.6]; p = 0.10), the long-term mortality was significantly lower (24.2% vs. 50.1% at 8 years; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.48 [0.26-0.91]; p = 0.03) in the Redo-SAVR group. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, Redo-SAVR remained significantly associated with reduced long-term mortality compared with ViV-TAVR (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.22-0.46]; p < 0.001). ConclusionsViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.

Long-term outcomes of balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Japanese patients

BackgroundData on long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Japanese patients beyond 5 years are limited. MethodsBetween June 2010 and December 2014, 55 consecutive inoperable or high surgical risk patients underwent TAVR with SAPIEN XT valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) for severe aortic stenosis at our institution. Among them, 2 patients were excluded from the analysis because one was converted to open surgery during the TAVR procedure and the other could not undergo TAVR due to device delivery failure. We retrospectively analyzed long-term clinical outcomes of these 53 patients (mean age: 84.1 years; mean STS score: 8.4) who had at least a 7-year follow-up after TAVR. ResultsThe rates of freedom from all-cause and cardiovascular deaths at 7 years were 35.8 % and 79.3 %, respectively. The moderate or severe structural valve deterioration (SVD) rate at 5 and 7 years was 7.2 % and 11.4 %, respectively. The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at 7 years was 6.2 %. ConclusionsThe 7-year mortality rate of inoperable or high surgical risk patients treated with SAPIEN XT was high, while the cardiovascular mortality rate was acceptable. Although the poor survival rate limited the long-term assessment of SAPIEN XT valve durability, the incidence of SVD and BVF was not rare.

Life expectancy and early to mid-term dysfunction of transcatheter aortic prostheses: incidence, modes, correlates, and outcome

Abstract Backgrounds Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) is a major concern regarding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in low-risk patients. Aims To assess incidence, determinants, modes, and outcome of early to mid-term BVD after TAVI in relation with life expectancy. Methods Consecutive TAVI recipients (2007–2020) with a post-interventional follow-up ≥1-year were prospectively included. BVD components and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were assessed according to updated Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium-3 criteria. Echocardiographic and laboratory follow-up was performed prior to discharge, at 3- and 12-months, and yearly thereafter. BVD/BVF and all-cause death served as endpoints. Average life expectancy was calculated from National Open Health Data and patients were stratified according to tertiles (1st: &amp;lt;6.85y, 2nd: 6.85–9.7y, 3rd: &amp;gt;9.7y). Results Of 1047 patients (81.6±6.8 y/o, 52.7% female, EuroSCORE II 4.5±2.5), ≥2 follow-ups were available from 622 (serial echo cohort). After a median echo follow-up of 12.2 months, incidence rates of BVD and BVF were 8.4% [95% confidence interval 6.7–10.3], and 3.5% [2.5–4.9] per valve-year, respectively, without differences between life expectancy tertiles (Figure 1). BVD incidence was double within the first year of implant (9.9% [7.7–12.6] per valve-year; mostly non-structural VD) vs. beyond (4.8% [3.1–7.2] per valve-year; structural and non-structural VD). Valve-in-valve procedure, and stenosis severity (both p&amp;lt;0.05), but not age/life expectancy (p&amp;gt;0.5) predisposed for BVD. After 4.4±3.0 years, mortality was 36.7%. Time-dependent BVD/BVF were independently associated with outcome for patients in the first (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.72 [1.06–2.88]/ 2.97 [1.72–6.22]) and second (AHR 1.96 [1.02–3.73]/ 2.31 [1.00–5.30]), but not the third tertile of life expectancy (AHR 1.42 [0.66–3.12]/ 1.84 [0.71–4.79]; Figure 1). Conclusions In this large prospective observational cohort, early to mid-term BVD after TAVI occurred at the same rate across the spectrum of life expectancy and was not prognostic among those with the longest life expectancy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Large multinational evaluation of time to reintervention in patients undergoing bioprosthetic valve implantation during open heart surgery

Abstract Introduction Bioprosthetic valves are increasingly utilized during open heart surgery in favor of mechanical valves. These tissue valves are prone for structural valve degeneration and failure, especially in young patients. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an appealing approach in these patients. Purpose To describe independent correlates for early need for reintervention. Method We used a large multicenter registry of patients (&amp;gt;45 years of age) with failed bioprosthetic surgical valves undergoing TAVI valve-in-valve (VinV) in either aortic or the mitral positions. Early reintervention was (&amp;lt;5 years between open-heart surgery and VinV). Multi-variable properties that were included: patient gender, age at open-heart surgery, valve size, baseline renal failure, position of valve implantation, and bioprosthetic valve label size. Results A total of 3,324 patients were included in the study (age at the time of open heart surgery 68.9+7.9 years). Median time to TAVI was 9 years (IQR 6–13 years). A total of 632 (19%) patients experienced early valve degeneration with median time to TAVI of only 3 years [IQR 1–5]. Patients with early degeneration were older than those without early degeneration (mean age at surgery was 72.8±9 years vs. 68.9±8 years; p&amp;lt;0.001). in addition, significant linear relation between older patient age and early valve degeneration (p for trend &amp;lt;0.001). Re-intervention in the mitral position was more common in the group of patients with early degeneration (24.4% vs 18.2% without early degeneration; p&amp;lt;0.001) Patient age and mitral valve position were independently associated with increased rate of early degeneration (OR 1.09 [1.08–1.11], p&amp;lt;0.001; OR 1.62 [1.31–2.01]; p&amp;lt;0.001 respectively). Conclusions In this large multicenter analysis of patients undergoing TAVR for failed bioprosthetic valves we identified old patient age and mitral valve (vs. aortic) as independent correlates for early intervention. A discrepancy with known association of young age and rapid bioprosthetic valve degeneration is to be determined. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Incidence, causes, correlates, and outcome of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure following transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) is a major concern regarding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) durability. We aimed to assess incidence, correlates, causes, and outcome of early to mid-term BVD after TAVI in relation to patient's life expectancy. Consecutive TAVI recipients (2007-20) with a follow-up ≥1 year were prospectively included. BVD and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were assessed according to Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium-3. BVD/BVF and all-cause death served as endpoints. Average life expectancy was calculated from National Open Health Data and patients were stratified according to tertiles (1st: <6.85 years, 2nd: 6.85-9.7 years, 3rd: >9.7 years). Of 1047 patients (81.6 ± 6.8 years old, EuroSCORE II 4.5 ± 2.5), ≥2 follow ups were available from 622 (serial echo cohort). After a median echo follow up of 12.2 months, incidence rates of BVD/BVF were 8.4% (95% confidence interval 6.7-10.3), and 3.5% (2.5-4.9) per valve-year, respectively, without differences between life expectancy tertiles. The incidence of BVD was two-fold higher within the first year of implant (9.9% per valve-year) vs. beyond (4.8% per valve-year). Valve-in-valve procedure and residual stenosis, but not age/life expectancy predisposed for BVD. BVD/BVF were independently associated with outcome for patients in the first [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.72 (1.06-2.88)/2.97 (1.72-6.22)] and second [AHR 1.96 (1.02-3.73)/2.31 (1.00-5.30)], but not the third tertile of life expectancy (P = n.s.). In this large prospective observational cohort, early to mid-term BVD after TAVI occurred at the same rate across the spectrum of life expectancy and was associated with increased mortality in patients with short but not in those with the longest life expectancy.

Management of Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Mitigating Complications and Optimizing Outcomes.

The use of bioprosthetic prostheses during surgical aortic valve replacements has increased dramatically over the last two decades, accounting for over 85% of surgical implantations. Given limited long-term durability, there has been an increase in aortic valve reoperations and reinterventions. With the advent of new technologies, multiple treatment strategies are available to treat bioprosthetic valve failure, including valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, ViV TAVR has an increased risk of higher gradients and patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) secondary to placing the new valve within the rigid frame of the prior valve, especially in patients with a small surgical bioprosthesis in situ. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows for placement of a larger transcatheter valve, as well as a fully expanded transcatheter valve, decreasing postoperative gradients and the risk of PPM.

TCT-486 Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction and Failure After TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis During One-Year Follow-up According to VARC-3

TCT-486 Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction and Failure After TAVR in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis During One-Year Follow-up According to VARC-3

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bioprosthetic Valve Failure: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3 Aortic Valve-in-Valve Study

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation is safe and effective for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) but has not been studied in low- and intermediate-risk patients. One year outcomes of the PARTNER 3 Aortic Valve-in-valve (AViV) Study were evaluated. MethodsThis prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled 100 patients from 29 sites with surgical BVF. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year. The key secondary outcomes included mean gradient, functional capacity, and rehospitalization (valve-related, procedure-related, or heart failure related). ResultsA total of 97 patients underwent AViV with a balloon-expandable valve from 2017 to 2019. Patients were 79.4% male with a mean age of 67.1 years and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 2.9%. The primary endpoint occurred in 2 patients (2.1%) who had strokes; there was no mortality at 1 year. Five patients (5.2%) had valve thrombosis events, and 9 patients (9.3%) had rehospitalizations, including 2 (2.1%) for strokes, 1 (1.0%) for heart failure, and 6 (6.2%) for aortic valve reinterventions (3 explants, 3 balloon dilations, and 1 percutaneous paravalvular regurgitation closure). From baseline to 1 year, New York Heart Association class III/IV decreased from 43.3% to 4.5%, mean gradient from 39.1 ± 18.2 mm Hg to 19.7 ± 7.6 mm Hg, and ≥moderate aortic regurgitation from 41.1% to 1.1%. ConclusionsAViV with a balloon-expandable valve improved hemodynamic and functional status at 1 year and can provide an additional therapeutic option in selected low- or intermediate-risk patients with surgical BVF, although longer term follow-up is necessary.

Surgical explantation of failed transcatheter heart valves: indications and results

Given the recent surge in transcatheter heart valve replacement (THVR), cardiac surgeons will surely face the challenge of eventual explantation. The aim of this study was to determine indications for reoperation, while exploring pertinent technical aspects and survival after THV explantation in a cohort originally deemed high risk or even inoperable. Between February 2008 and March 2019, 31 patients with failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) underwent surgical explantations at our facility. Data were prospectively collected for retrospective analysis of procedural indications, technical issues, and postoperative survival. The major reason for TAVR removal was bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) due to infective endocarditis (IE: 16/31 [51.6%]), non-structural (NSVD: 14/31 [45.2%]) and structural (SVD: 1/31 [3.2%]) valve deterioration accounting for the rest. Mean age at THV explantation was 76.3 ± 8.3 years, and median time from TAVR to explantation was 153 days (0 days–56.6 months). Median ICU and hospital stay were 6 days (1–44 days) and 23 days (8–62 days), respectively. Thirty-day and 1-year survival rates were 74.2% and 67.2%, respectively. Median follow-up interval after explantation was 364 days (3 days–80 months). Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 124.6 ± 46.8 min, and mean aortic cross-clamp time was 84.3 ± 32.9 min. There was no need for unplanned aortic root repair owing to tissue damage during dissection of the TAVR from surrounding tissue. The most common reason for THV explantation was (a) BVF for IE and (b) BVF secondary to NSVD. Although 30-day and 1-year mortality rates in this multimorbid cohort were predictably high, no procedural mortalities occurred.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure after TAVI in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis during one-year follow-up according to VARC-3

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis has become more frequent in the last years. This may pose challenges for long-time valve durability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) with the newest-generation devices in BAV stenosis up to one-year follow-up (FU).MethodsThe primary endpoint was defined as the prevalence of BVD during the first procedural year according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 criteria. Secondary endpoints were defined as failure in device success and clinical endpoints according to VARC-3.ResultsA total of 107 patients were included. Of these, 34 subjects (31.8%) met the criteria for BVD during a mean FU of 263 ± 180 days, of which 20.2% were already documented after thirty days. Device success after one year was lower in the + BVD cohort (57.6% vs. 98.7%, p < 0.0001*). The rates of structural valve deterioration were 6.5%, non-structural valve deterioration (NSVD) 17.8%, subclinical leaflet thickening 10.3%, and endocarditis 0.9%. NSVD was foremost triggered by patient prosthesis mismatch in balloon-expandable valves. Hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 1 and 2 was confirmed in 16.8% of + BVD patients, while stage 1 and 3 bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 1.9%. There was no impact of BVD on mortality.ConclusionThere is critical evidence of early BVD after TAVI in BAV during one-year FU in one-third of patients, also lowering device success. The most frequently observed bioprosthetic valve dysfunction was NSVD due to patient prosthesis mismatch following TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve.

10-Year Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Leaflet Design (Intra- Versus Supra-Annular) in Mortality and Hemodynamic Performance.

BackgroundThe impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leaflet design on long-term device performance is still unknown. This study sought to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of intra- (IA) versus supra-annular (SA) TAVR designs up-to 10-years following implantation.MethodsConsecutive patients with at least 5-years follow-up following TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis from June 2007 to December 2016 were included. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) and hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) were defined according to VARC-3 updated definitions and estimated using cumulative incidence function to account for the competing risk of death.ResultsA total of 604 patients (82 years; 53% female) were analyzed and divided into IA (482) and SA (122) groups. Overall survival rates at 10-years were similar (IA 15%, 95%CI: 10–22; SA 11%, 95%CI: 6–20; p = 0.21). Compared to the SA TAVR, mean transaortic gradients were significantly higher and increased over time in the IA group. IA TAVRs showed higher 10-year cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 8% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.02) and severe HVD (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.05). The occurrence of BVF and HVD in the IA group occurred primarily in the smallest TAVR devices (20–23-mm). After excluding these sizes, the cumulative incidences of BVF (IA 5% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.40) and severe HVD (IA 2% vs. SA 1%, p = 0.11) were similar.ConclusionIn this study, TAVR leaflet design had no impact on survival at 10-years. IA devices showed higher transaortic gradients and cumulative incidences of HVD and BVF predominantly occurring in the smallest valve sizes.

The 10-year horizon: Survival and structural valve degeneration in first-generation transcatheter aortic valves

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment for high- or intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. As more low-risk patients are being treated, transcatheter heart valve durability is gaining importance. Data on structural valve deterioration beyond 8 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is limited. To evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with a follow-up of ≥10 years, focusing on survival and structural valve deterioration, according to the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery definitions. Only patients with a follow-up of ≥ 10 years were included in this study (n=510). Using serial echocardiographic data, the cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure were analysed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used for predictor assessment. Mean age was 79.6±6.7 years, with a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 19.8±12.7%. Immediate procedural mortality was 2.9%, and 30-day mortality was 7.8%. Kaplan-Meier-estimated survival at 10 years was 10.3±1.5%. At 10 years, the cumulative incidences of severe and moderate structural valve deterioration were 4.3% and 13%, respectively, for the total population. The cumulative incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure at 10 years was 9.0%. There was a significant difference in the rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure depending on valve type: structural valve deterioration, SAPIEN 8.9% vs CoreValve 2.2% at 10 years (P=0.001); bioprosthetic valve failure, SAPIEN 13.9% vs CoreValve 6.7% at 10 years (P=0.021). Structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure of early transcatheter heart valves was low at 10 years. The identified differences between valve types must be validated using current-generation devices in younger patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Bioprosthesis Durability: A Single-Center Experience

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) is gaining momentum in the treatment of severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, and its indication is expanding to lower surgical risk individuals, who are generally younger and have a long life expectancy. Therefore, transcatheter bioprostheses durability appears of critical importance. Aim of the present study is to evaluate mid-term outcomes of TAVI in a high-volume single center cohort. MethodsWe analyzed all consecutive patients (n = 408) who underwent transfemoral TAVI at a single, high-volume center, between 2007 and 2014. Study objectives were all-cause death and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at long term follow-up. Structural valve deterioration (SVD), BVF and valve-related death were defined according to current international standards. Follow-up was performed by in person visit and transthoracic echocardiography, which was obtained only in a minority of patients, or phone call as per patient preference. ResultsAt a median follow-up of 1821 days, overall mortality was 64.5%, with cardiovascular disease accounting for roughly half of total deaths. Valve-related deaths occurred in 10 patients. Seventeen patients were diagnosed with BVF, and 15 required repeat intervention. Moderate and severe SVD were observed in 10 and 7 patients, respectively. In the subgroup of patients with echocardiographic mid-term follow-up (n = 76), no significant increase of transprosthetic gradients nor increase of significant regurgitation was detected. ConclusionIn the present unselected, all-comers cohort, TAVI bioprostheses appeared to have excellent durability at long-term follow-up.

5-Year Follow-Up From the PARTNER 2 Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry for Degenerated Aortic SurgicalBioprostheses.

The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at 5 years. TAVR for degenerated surgical bioprostheses in patients at high risk for reoperative surgery is an important treatment option that may delay or obviate the need for surgical intervention; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are unknown. The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 ViV and continued access registries prospectively enrolled patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at high risk for reoperation. Five-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were obtained in 95.9% of patients. In 365 (96 registry and 269 continued access) patients, the mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of surgical mortality score was 9.1 ± 4.7%, and New York Heart Association functional class was III or IV in 90.4%. At 5 years, the Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality and any stroke were 50.6% and 10.5%, respectively. Using Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions, the incidence of structural valve deterioration, related hemodynamic valve deterioration, or bioprosthetic valve failure at 5 years was 6.6%. Aortic valve re-replacement was performed in 6.3% (n=14), the majority of which was due to stenosis (n=6) and combined aortic insufficiency/paravalvular regurgitation (n=3). The mean gradient, Doppler velocity index, paravalvular regurgitation, and quality of life measured by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores in survivors remained stable from 30days postprocedure through 5 years. At the 5-year follow-up, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure in high surgical risk patients was associated with sustained improvement in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Strategies When the First Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Fails

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the standard of care for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at high or prohibitive surgical risk. The 2020 valvular heart disease guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association now include TAVR as a class I indication for patients aged 65–80 years and not at high or prohibitive risk. The longer life expectancy of this patient population raises the issue of TAVR valve durability and the management of bioprosthetic valve failure of TAVR valves. In this review, the authors discuss bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and summarize existing data regarding redo-TAVR and surgery for failed TAVR. Finally, they propose an approach to evaluate patients with failed TAVR and plan for a second TAVR procedure as indicated.

Practical Approach to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture in a Failed Bioprosthetic Surgical Valve.

Bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve failure requiring reintervention is a frequent clinical problem with event rates up to 20% at 10 years after surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has become a valuable treatment option for these patients, although it requires careful procedural planning. We here describe and illustrate a stepwise approach to plan and perform ViV-TAVI and discuss preprocedural computerized tomography planning, transcatheter heart valve selection, and implantation techniques. Particular attention is paid to coronary artery protection and the possible need for bioprosthetic valve fracture since patients with small surgical aortic bioprostheses are at a risk of high residual gradients after ViV-TAVI. Considering updated clinical data on long-term outcomes following ViV-TAVI, this approach may become the default treatment strategy for patients with a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis.

Different Rates of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Failure With Perimount™ and Trifecta™ Bioprostheses

ObjectivesThe use of bioprostheses in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has increased in younger patients. Comparative analysis of different types of bioprostheses is lacking. We aimed to compare two proprietary bioprostheses with different designs, i.e., internally and externally mounted leaflets, focusing on the long-term durability and survival.MethodsWe conducted a large single-center retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent SAVR with either Perimount™ or Trifecta™ bioprostheses between 2001 and 2019. The patient groups were further subdivided by age <65 and >65. Endpoints of the study were all-cause mortality and reoperation due to bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF).ResultsSelection criteria resulted in a total sample of 5,053 patients; 2,630 received a Perimount prosthesis (internally mounted leaflets) and 2,423 received a Trifecta prosthesis (externally mounted leaflets). The mean age at surgery was similar (69 ± 11 y, PM, and 68 ± 10 y, TF, p = 0.9), as was estimated survival at 8 years (76.1 ± 1.3%, PM, and 63.7 ± 1.9% TF; p=0.133). Patients in the Trifecta group had a significantly higher cumulative reoperation rate at 8 years compared to those in the Perimount group (16.9 ± 1.9% vs. 3.8 ± 0.4%; p < 0.01). This difference persisted across age groups (<65 y, 13.3% TF vs. 8.6% PM; >65 y, 12% TF vs. 7% PM).ConclusionBioprostheses for SAVR with externally mounted leaflets (Trifecta) showed significantly higher long-term reoperation rates compared to those with internally mounted leaflets (Perimount), regardless of the patient's age at SAVR. Survival was similar with both bioprostheses.

Redo surgical aortic valve replacement for prosthetic valve valve‐in‐valve dysfunction

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred intervention for patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant comorbidities. This technique can also be used for failed bioprosthetic valves and is known as the valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure. Placing TAVR in a small bioprosthesis (<23 mm) can lead to delayed dysfunction of the prosthetic valve. We present a case of a late explanted ViV 8 years post-initial aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting, and 3 years post-ViV procedure in a 76-year-old female. A video of the surgical procedure is provided.

Bioprosthetic Pulmonary Valve Dysfunction in Congenital Heart Disease

BackgroundWe aim to identify the incidence and timing of dysfunction and failure of stented bioprosthetic valves in the pulmonary position in congenital heart disease patients. MethodsA total of 482 congenital heart disease patients underwent 484 stented bioprosthetic pulmonary valve implantations between 2008 and 2018. There were 164 porcine valves (Porcine) and 320 bovine pericardial valves (Pericardial) implanted. Primary endpoints were survival, valve dysfunction, and valve failure. ResultsPericardial valves were implanted in older patients (22.0, interquartile range [IQR] 14-33 vs 16.0, IQR 11-23 years, P < 0.001). Five-year survival (96.7% vs 97.9%) for the Pericardial and Porcine groups, respectively, were similar, P > 0.05. Forty-six (34%) Porcine and 75 (27%) Pericardial group patients met criteria for valve dysfunction at a median echocardiographic follow-up time of 7.43 years (IQR 4.1-9.5 years) and 3.26 years (IQR 1.7-4.7 years), respectively. More Pericardial group patients suffered from at least mild late PR while late median peak gradient was higher in the Porcine group, P < .001 for both. Risk factors for valve dysfunction included decreasing patient age for the entire cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.04, P = .015) and lack of anticoagulation at discharge for the Porcine group (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.03-9.10, P = .044) but not the Pericardial group. Five-year cumulative incidence of dysfunction was 39% for the Pericardial group and 17% for the Porcine group. ConclusionsPorcine stented and bovine pericardial stented valves can be implanted in the pulmonary position in all age groups safely. However, despite similar rates of valve failure, bovine pericardial stented valves have a higher incidence of valve dysfunction at mid-term follow-up.

Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction and Failure after TAVI in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis During One-Year Follow-Up According to VARC-3

Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction and Failure after TAVI in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis During One-Year Follow-Up According to VARC-3