Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves Research Articles

On the role of aortic valve architecture for physiological hemodynamics and valve replacement, Part I: Flow configuration and vortex dynamics

Aortic valve replacement has become an increasing concern due to the rising prevalence of aortic stenosis in an ageing population. Existing replacement options have limitations, necessitating the development of improved prosthetic aortic valves. In this study, flow characteristics during systole in a stenotic aortic valve case are compared with those downstream of two newly designed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves (BioAVs). To do so, advanced three-dimensional fluid–structure interaction simulations are conducted and dedicated analysis methods to investigate jet flow configuration and vortex dynamics are developed. Our findings reveal that the stenotic case maintains a high jet flow eccentricity due to a fixed orifice geometry, resulting in flow separation and increased vortex stretching and tilting in the commissural low-flow regions. One BioAV design introduces non-axisymmetric leaflet motion, which reduces the maximum jet velocity and forms more vortical structures. The other BioAV design produces a fixed symmetric triangular jet shape due to non-moving leaflets and exhibits favourable vorticity attenuation, revealed by negative temporally and spatially averaged projected vortex stretching values, and significantly reduced drag. Therefore, this study highlights the benefits of custom-designed aortic valves in the context of their replacement through comprehensive and novel flow analyses. The results emphasise the importance of analysing jet flow, vortical structures, momentum balance and vorticity transport for thoroughly evaluating aortic valve performance.

Early thrombus formation including hypo-attenuated leaflet thrombosis after surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

To assess the occurrence, predictors, and outcomes of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and thrombus outside the prosthetic valve following surgical aortic valve replacement. A total of 118 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves between July 2020 and June 2022. Sixty-two (52.5%) patients, which is a fairly high number of patients, underwent cardiac computed tomography and transthoracic echocardiography one week after surgery. Patients were divided into two groups, those with HALT (n = 14) and those without HALT (n = 48). Of the 62 patients who underwent cardiac computed tomography, HALT was observed in 14 (22.5%) patients during the very early postoperative phase. Reduced leaflet motion was observed in two of the 14 patients. The low-attenuation areas were located outside the prosthetic valve in 10 cases (71.4%) in the HALT group and in 14 cases (29.2%) in the non-HALT group. More than 50% of patients (57.1%) with HALT and 79.2% without HALT were administered warfarin. Neither in-hospital deaths nor postoperative thromboembolic events were observed during hospitalization. No patient had a mean pressure gradient > 20mmHg in either group. HALT was observed in one-fifth of the cases after surgical aortic valve replacement during the very early postoperative phase in an institution wherein administration of continuous heparin infusion after surgery is a standard practice. HALT did not affect the early prognosis or incidence of cerebral infarction.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Abstract 16826: A Rare Case of an Emergent Third Valve in Valve Intervention

Introduction: Bioprosthetic valves are prone to structural degeneration due to an average lifetime of 10-15 years. Valve in Valve (VIV) TAVR has become an alternative to the high-risk surgical patients as the growing number of successful bioprosthetic valve placements and the deteriorations over time. Emergent VIV intervention effectiveness with prior multiple artificial valves is less studied. Hypothesis: We report a case of a 54-year-old male presenting with obstructive shock with history of substance abuse and bicuspid aortic valve status post bioprosthetic aortic valve with aortic root repair at age of 15(1983), aortic stenosis requiring repeat surgical bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) (25 mm) at age 42(2011). Recalcitrant cardiogenic shock despite vasopressor. Emergent Heart catheterization showed mild coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe cardiomyopathy, Left Ventricle ejection Fraction 15-20%. Aortic valve Gradient was 80 mmHg. Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) ruled out endocarditis. Impella CP and Swan-Ganz catheter were placed for hemodynamic support and monitoring. Methods: The Heart Team approach was followed. Patient was at high risk of mortality and operative complications with redo sternotomy. He subsequently underwent valve in valve TAVR with self-expanding 26 mm valve. Prior surgical valve did not require fracturing post implantation. Results: Post Trans Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) the mean gradient on echocardiogram decreased to 10 mmHg and LVEF recovered to 55-60%. The patient was successfully weaned off Vaso-pressors and eventually discharged home. Conclusion: Most common cause of transcatheter bioprosthetic valve failure is stenosis from calcification and thrombosis. VIV TAVR in recent studies has proven to be safe with favorable outcomes. Our patient had already undergone two surgical valve interventions, presented with critical bioprosthetic valve stenosis requiring salvage TAVR for cardiogenic shock. After the Heart team approach, TAVR was opted as a more favorable option for the patient. Although, the life of a bioprosthetic valve results in multiple interventions but overall valve in Valve technique has been proven to provide expected results in emergent high-risk patients.

Porcine or Bovine Tissue Valves: Which are Better for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement?

Summary The choice between mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve implants is affected by relatively clear criteria. However, the choice between porcine or pericardial valve is more complex regarding bioprosthetic devices. We aimed to elucidate any hemodynamic and clinical difference between two widely used bioprosthetic valves: the Sorin Mitroflow bovine pericardial valve and the St. Jude Medical Epic Supra porcine valve. We retrospectively studied 71 consecutive patients separated into two groups based on the valve they received. Clinical outcomes included patient survival and hemodynamic performance of the implanted prostheses. Patients were assessed at one and five years postoperatively. Mean transprosthetic pressure gradients were used as a marker of hemodynamic performance. The Mitroflow valve exhibited lesser mean transvalvular gradients than the Epic valve for all labelled sizes at one and five years postoperatively. The 5-year survival was equal between groups. Both prostheses demonstrated a small but significant increase in mean pressure gradients in the fifth year. Most patients enjoyed significant clinical improvement as assessed by NYHA functional class. Both bioprostheses performed very well with excellent hemodynamic parameters. The pericardial valves are a safe and appropriate choice for surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

Emergency Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in a Surgical Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Caused by Sudden Progression of Structural Valve Deterioration.

Bioprosthetic aortic valves have limited durability. We herein report sudden progression of structural valve deterioration (SVD) and a successful case of emergency transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) implantation for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) caused by SVD. A 79-year-old man who had undergone a Bentall operation 11 years prior was diagnosed with ADHF due to suddenly progressive SVD. Emergency TAV implantation in the surgical bioprosthetic valve was selected based on the surgical risk. Ours and previous case reports suggest that SVD can progress suddenly, even after months of stability, and that emergency TAV implantation is effective.

Comparison of a novel self-expanding transcatheter heart valve with two established devices for treatment of degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses

AimsThis study was performed to compare haemodynamic properties of a novel transcatheter heart valve (THV) with two established valve technologies for treatment of failing surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves (SAV). The ALLEGRA THV has been recently described with a proven safety and performance profile.Methods and resultsThe study was designed as a retrospective, single-centre study investigating 112 patients (77.7 ± 7.1 years, 53.8% female, STS score 6.8 ± 5.8% and logEuroSCORE I 27.4 ± 16.1%) with failing SAV. Patients were treated with the ALLEGRA THV (NVT, n = 24), the CoreValve/EvolutR (MTD, n = 64) or the Edwards Sapien/Sapien XT/Sapien 3 (EDW, n = 24). Adverse events, haemodynamic outcomes and patient safety were analysed according to VARC-3 definitions. Overall procedural success was high (94.6%), even though 58.9% of the treated SAV were classified as small (true inner diameter < 21 mm). After treatment, the mean pressure gradient was significantly reduced (baseline: 33.7 ± 16.5 mmHg, discharge: 18.0 ± 7.1 mmHg), with a corresponding increase in effective orifice area (EOA). The complication rates did not differ in between groups. There was a trend to lower mean transvalvular gradients after implantation of self-expanding THV with supra-annular valve function, despite a higher frequency of smaller SAVs in the NVT and MTD group. Additionally, comparison between NVT and MTD revealed statistically lower transvalvular gradients (NVT 14.9 ± 5.0 mmHg, MTD 18.7 ± 7.5 mmHg, p = 0.0295) in a subgroup analysis.ConclusionsValve-in-valve (ViV) treatment of failing SAV with supra-annular design like the ALLEGRA THV resulted in favourable haemodynamic outcomes with similar low clinical event rates and may therefore be an interesting alternative for VIV TAVI.Graphical abstract

Treatment of Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: Impact of Patient Sex and Life Expectancy on Treatment Choice.

In adults with severe aortic stenosis, sex and age differences in symptoms and diagnosis may lead to delays in intervention. Choice of intervention partly depends on expected longevity because bioprosthetic valves have limited durability, particularly in younger patients. Current guidelines recommend the following: a mechanical valve in younger adults (aged <50 years) if lifelong anticoagulation is possible and acceptable and a valve-sparing procedure is not possible; surgical mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in adults aged 50-65 years; and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for those aged >80 years based on lower mortality and morbidity compared to SAVR and adequate valve durability. For patients aged 65-80 years, the choice between TAVI and a bioprosthetic SAVR depends on expected longevity, which is greater in women than men, as well as associated cardiac and noncardiac conditions, valvular and vascular anatomy, estimated risk of SAVR versus TAVI and expected complications and patient preferences.

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.

Outcomes of surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency

BackgroundResults and durability of aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis are well known, but no study has focused on the results of aortic valve replacement in aortic insufficiency. AimThe aim of this retrospective study was to describe our mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency. MethodsAll consecutive adult patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency at two European centres (in France and Germany) between May 2005 and December 2020 were analysed. ResultsDuring the study period, 289 patients were included. Mean age was 56.9±12.5 years. Overall operative mortality was 1.5%, and the 10-year survival estimate rate was 75.0%, which was significantly lower than in the age- and sex-matched general population, with a standardized mortality ratio of 2.88 (95% confidence interval 1.96–4.08; P<0001). Freedom from aortic valve-related death was 87.6%, and from aortic valve-related reoperation was 87.4%. No patient aged>60 years was reoperated on during follow-up. Freedom from severe structural valve deterioration at 10 years was 73.3%, and freedom from moderate structural valve deterioration at 10 years was 50.3%. Freedom from major adverse valve-related events at 10 years was 69.7%. ConclusionsAlthough bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency shows good early results, 10-year mortality and major adverse valve-related event rates in young patients may be a concern, with a reduction in life expectancy compared with the general population.

Effects of short-term oral anticoagulation following surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

Short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for patients after surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR); however, the potential benefits remain controversial. This study evaluated the effects of short-term OAC following bAVR. From 2010 to 2017, total 450 patients who underwent bAVR were enrolled. The outcomes of patients who did (OAC group) and who did not receive OAC (without-OAC group) after bAVR were compared. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for potential confounders, and a 1:1 matched cohort was formed. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD). A total of 175 (39%) patients received OAC after bAVR. The median follow-up period was 2.9 years, the median duration of OAC use was 4 months; 162 pairs of patients were identified after the PSM. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of 1-year embolism/ischemic stroke between the OAC and without-OAC group in PSM cohort (0.62% vs. 1.89% for embolism, p=0.623; 0 vs. 1.23% for ischemic stroke, p=0.499). The prevalence of 1-year intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) between OAC and without-OAC group was also comparable (0.62% vs. 0.62%, p=1). The OAC group had a lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR):0.488, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.259-0.919). There was also a trend for reduced BVD in the OAC group (aHR: 0.661, 95% CI: 0.339-1.290). Our study demonstrated that short-term OAC use after bAVR was associated with lower all-cause mortality. The prevalence of 1-year embolism/ischemic stroke/ICH were comparable despite of OAC use.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valve Replacement or Repair.

BackgroundWe sought to examine outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation with valve repair/replacement.Methods and ResultsTwo atrial fibrillation cohorts from Medicare were identified from 2015 to 2019. They comprised patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter mitral valve repair (MV repair cohort) and surgical aortic or mitral bioprosthetic or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (bioprosthetic cohort). Each cohort was divided into warfarin and DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) groups. Study outcomes included mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. Inverse probability weighting was used for adjustment between the 2 groups in each cohort. The MV repair cohort included 1178 patients. After a median of 468 days, DOACs were associated with lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55–0.82], P<0.001), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52–1.00], P=0.05) and bleeding (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63–0.99], P=0.04) compared with warfarin. The bioprosthetic cohort included 8089 patients. After a median follow‐up of 413 days, DOACs were associated with similar risk of mortality (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86–1.01], P=0.08), higher risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.13–1.43], P<0.001), and lower risk of bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80–0.93], P<0.001) compared with warfarin.ConclusionsIn patients with atrial fibrillation, DOACs are associated with similar mortality, lower bleeding, but higher stroke with bioprosthetic valve replacement and lower risk of all 3 outcomes with MV repair compared with warfarin.

Impact of Commissural Misalignment onHydrodynamic Function Following Valve-in-Valve Intervention With the ACURATE neo.

Limited evidence is available regarding valve-in-valve (VIV) intervention with the ACURATE neotranscatheter heart valve (THV). Low implantation has demonstrated leaflet interaction between the surgical bioprosthesis and the THV, leading to impaired hydrodynamic performance. It is unknown if commissural alignment (CA) can affect this phenomenon. Novel techniques have now been developed to achieve CA with the ACURATE neoTHV. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of commissural misalignment (CMA) on hydrodynamic function following VIV intervention with the ACURATE neo THV using a bench model. VIV intervention was performed with the ACURATE neo (a self-expanding THV with supra-annular leaflet position) implanted deep in the surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve (Mitroflow). Hydrodynamic function at CA (0°) and 3different degrees of CMA (30°, 60°, and 90°) was tested. As per the International Organization for Standardization, a regurgitant fraction<20% is considered optimal. Following VIV, the central THV regurgitant fraction at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of CMA was 8.6% ± 2.0%, 30.3% ± 12.0%, 42.6% ± 11.9%, and 66.7% ± 25.4% (P< 0.0001), respectively. On high-speed video there was no evidence of leaflet interaction at CA, whereas at 30°, 60°, and 90° of CMA there was clear evidence of THV leaflet interaction with those of the surgical valve, leading to impaired leaflet closure and to severe central THV regurgitation. In VIV using the ACURATE neo THV at deep implantation, increasing degree of CMA was associated with THV leaflet interaction with those of the surgical valve and worsening regurgitant fraction. THV leaflet interaction was prevented when there was CA.

Outcomes of Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged ≤65 and >65 Years

BackgroundImplantation of a bioprosthetic valve is a reasonable choice for patients aged > 65 years. For middle-aged patients there is less certainty about whether a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve is best. MethodsThe Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy of the Avalus bioprosthesis (Medtronic). We evaluated clinical and echocardiographic outcomes through 5 years of follow-up, stratified by age ≤ 65 and >65 years. ResultsTwo hundred seventy-one patients (24.2%) were ≤65 years old and 847 (75.8%) >65 years old. Most patients in both groups were men (217 [80.1%] vs 623 [73.6%], respectively; P = .031). Younger patients had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk of mortality (1.1% ± 0.9% vs 2.2% ± 1.4%, P < .001), better baseline New York Heart Association class (P = .004), and fewer comorbidities than older patients. At 5 years mortality was lower among younger than older patients (5.3% vs 14.0%, P < .001) and no cases of structural valve deterioration occurred in either group. Effective orifice area was similar between age groups (P = .11), and mean gradient was 13.9 ± 5.4 vs 12.0 ± 4.1 mm Hg (P < .001). Multivariable linear regression identified several parameters associated with mean aortic gradient at 5 years, including baseline age and mean aortic gradient, discharge stroke volume index and EOA, and implanted valve size. Ninety-five percent of patients were in New York Heart Association class I/II through 5 years in both age groups (P = .85). ConclusionsFindings from this analysis demonstrate satisfactory safety, hemodynamic performance, and durability of the Avalus bioprosthesis through a 5-year follow-up in patients aged ≤ 65 and >65 years.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in degenerated trans-catheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve

Abstract Background The moving forward indication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to younger aortic valve stenosis (AS) patients might lead to degenerated trans-catheter heart valve (TAV) issues which need re-intervention. TAVI in a degenerated bioprosthetic surgical valve (SAV) is feasible. However, the results of TAVI-in-TAV when compare to TAVI-in-SAV have been rarely reported. Purpose The aims of this study is to compare device success, early safety events at 30 days, clinical efficacy events after 30 days, and time related valve safety events between TAVI-in-TAV and TAVI-in-SAV. Methods Retrospectively analysed data from 62 consecutive patients with degenerated TAV or SAV who received TAVI at our Scientific institute from January 2016 to June 2020. Results 10 patients who received TAVI-in-TAV and 52 patients who received TAVI-in-SAV were included. The patient median age was 78 years and 60% was male. The median STS score was significantly higher in TAVI-in-TAV compared to TAVI-in-SAV groups; 7.80% vs. 3.30% respectively, p=0.006. The age of the first bioprosthetic was longer in TAVI-in-SAV compared to TAV-in-SAV group; 9.8 versus 5.3 years, respectively. All TAVI devices used in both groups were second generation. The device success rate, early safety at 30 days, clinical efficacy events at median 2-years follow up were comparable; 90% vs. 88.5%, 80% vs. 76.9%, 70% vs. 44.2%, in TAVI-in-TAV and TAVI-in-SAV groups respectively. All-cause mortality at 2-years follow up was comparable; 10% vs. 9.8% in TAVI-in-SAV and TAVI-in-SAV groups, respectively. Time related valve safety events at 2-years follow up was comparable; 30% vs. 26.9% in TAVI-in-TAV and TAVI-in-SAV groups respectively. Most valve safety events were related to residual high trans-aortic valve gradient which found only in small first bioprosthetic valve. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 16.7% in both groups. The coronary obstruction found was 19.2% in TAVI-in-SAV group. Conclusions TAVI-in-TAV is feasible and comparable on device success, immediate and 2-years follow up outcomes compared to TAVI-in-SAV. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up time are needed to confirm these results as well as the upstream management of AS patient with long life expectancy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Conclusion

Risks and benefits of concurrent treatment with antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in post-op bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement patients.

Among patients receiving surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR), there is an elevated risk of thromboembolic events postoperatively. However, the risks and benefits of varying anticoagulation strategies remain controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the risks and benefits of aspirin monotherapy to aspirin plus warfarin ("concurrent therapy") in patients receiving bAVR. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patients' data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, including those who underwent bAVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting between 2009 and 2018. Patients were identified as having been discharged with aspirin only or concurrent therapy. The outcomes were mortality, thromboembolic events, and clinically relevant bleeding during a 6-month follow-up. The event rates were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable survival analysis, incorporating propensity scores, was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for each outcome. The cohort consisted of 3047 patients. Approximately 58% of patients received aspirin only and 42% received concurrent therapy. Patients who received concurrent therapy were more likely to be older, have hypertension, previous stroke, and longer hospital stays. After adjustment using multivariable analysis, concurrent therapy was associated with a higher risk of clinically relevant bleeding (aHR, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-3.25). There was no significant difference in the risk of thromboembolic events or mortality between the two groups. Patients who underwent bAVR and were discharged on concurrent therapy compared to aspirin only had a significantly increased risk of bleeding without a significant difference in thromboembolic events.

Endovascular snare technique to facilitate delivery of self-expanding valve during transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve replacement in angulated aortas: A case series.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve replacement (ViV) has been widely accepted as a less invasive alternative to treat failed aortic surgical or transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. Angulated aortas present an additional challenge, particularly when using self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (SE-THV). Two patients with failed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves and one patient with a failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valve underwent transcatheter aortic ViV using SE-THV. All were deemed high-risk for surgical aortic valve replacement by a heart team. All three patients had initial failed SE-THV delivery using a conventional approach with subsequent successful delivery using the endovascular snare technique. In Cases 1 and 2, the SE-THV was biased towards the greater curve of the angulated aorta and behind the outer frame of the bioprosthetic valve frame. An endovascular snare was deployed through a secondary left femoral artery access, and the valve delivery system was advanced through the snare in the ascending aorta. The snare was tightened around the SE-THV capsule proximal to the hat-marker, allowing deflection of the SE-THV and successful delivery. In Case 3, the SE-THV interacted with the tall frame of a failed SE-THV. A snare via the left femoral artery was deployed in the descending artery. The SE-THV was advanced through the snare, and both the snare and SE-THV were advanced together to the ascending aorta where the SE-THV was deflected and successfully delivered. The endovascular snare technique is a feasible option for successful delivery of SE-THV during transcatheter aortic ViV in failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic valves in angulated aortas.

Mechanism of Failure of Surgical Aortic Bioprosthetic Valves Undergoing Valve-in-Valve TAVI

Mechanism of Failure of Surgical Aortic Bioprosthetic Valves Undergoing Valve-in-Valve TAVI

Abstract 12934: Valve, Ventricle, Vessel or Virus: Who is the Shocking Culprit?

Introduction: Determining the etiology of dyspnea in patients with structural heart disease can be challenging, especially in the current era with high prevalence of COVID-19. Our case highlights the importance of evaluating bioprosthetic valve function in the setting of a change in clinical status. Case: An 82 year old female with surgical coronary revascularization and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in 2003 presented with dyspnea. Her evaluation revealed hypoxemia, leukocytosis and a chest x-ray supportive of viral infection when the local prevalence of both COVID-19 and influenza were at their peak. She was admitted to the intensive care unit with impending respiratory failure most likely from an infectious etiology. Echocardiogram revealed an ejection fraction (EF) of 25% and severe prosthetic aortic regurgitation with a pressure half time of 117ms ( Figure ). Six months prior, she had normal EF and normal prosthetic valve function. Interestingly, she lacked a wide pulse pressure, murmur of aortic insufficiency, and other characteristic exam findings of valvular dysfunction. The patient rapidly deteriorated into cardiogenic shock. Following urgent evaluation for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, she had successful valve-in-valve deployment of a 23mm Edwards S3 Ultra valve. Her hemodynamic parameters improved immediately and she was weaned from inotropic support 1 day following valve replacement. Conclusions: Evaluation of prosthetic valve function is integral when a patient’s clinical condition changes. In our patient, depressed EF resulting in an elevated left ventricular end-diastolic pressure likely diminished the regurgitant fraction and the expected aortic insufficiency murmur. Periodic evaluation of prosthetic heart valve function is necessary, particularly when the patient’s clinical condition changes. Acute severe aortic regurgitation with cardiogenic shock is fatal without rapid evaluation and valve replacement.

Case report: Buddy wire technique to facilitate atrial septal crossing during transcatheter transseptal mitral valve implantation.

BackgroundTranscatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation (MVIV) has emerged as a viable treatment option in patients at high risk for surgery. Occasionally, despite appropriate puncture location and adequate dilation, difficulty is encountered in advancing the transcatheter heart valve across interatrial septum.Case summaryWe describe a case of a 79-year-old woman with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prior surgical bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valve replacement implanted in 2007, atrial fibrillation, and Group II pulmonary hypertension who presented with progressively worsening heart failure symptoms secondary to severe bioprosthetic mitral valve stenosis and moderate-severe mitral regurgitation. Her symptoms had worsened over several months, with multiple admissions at other institutions with treatment for both COPD exacerbation and heart failure. Transoesophageal echocardiogram demonstrated preserved ejection fraction, normal functioning aortic valve, and dysfunctional mitral prosthesis with severe stenosis (mean gradient 13 mmHg) and moderate-severe regurgitation. After a multi-disciplinary heart team discussion, the patient underwent a transcatheter MVIV implantation. During the case, inability in advancing the transcatheter heart valve (THV) across interatrial septum despite adequate septal balloon pre-dilation was successfully managed with the support of a stiff ‘buddy wire’ anchored in the left upper pulmonary vein using the same septal puncture. The patient tolerated the procedure well and was discharged home.DiscussionOperators should be aware of potential strategies to advance the THV when difficulty is encountered in crossing the atrial septum despite adequate septal preparation. One such strategy is the use of stiff ‘buddy wire’ for support which avoids the need for more aggressive septal dilatation.