Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have not been extensively studied in valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR). We compared outcomes of supra-annular SE and BE THVs used for ViV-TAVR via a retrospective analysis of institutional data (2013-2023) including all patients undergoing ViV-TAVR (TAVR in previous surgical AVR). Unmatched and propensity-matched (1:1) comparisons of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were undertaken between SE and BE THV along with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A total of 315 patients undergoing ViV-TAVR were included of which 73% received a SE THV. Median age was 77 years and women comprised 42.5% of the population. Propensity-score matching (1:1) yielded 81 matched pairs. Implanted aortic valve size was comparable between the groups (23 mm [23-26] vs. 23mm [23-26], p=0.457). At 30 days following ViV-TAVR, the SE group had a lower mean aortic valve gradient (14 mmHg [11-18] vs. 17.5 mmHg [13-25], p=0.007). A higher number of BE patients had severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (16% vs. 6.2%, p=0.04). At one-year follow-up, the SE group had a lower aortic valve gradient (14.0 mmHg [9.6-19] vs. 17 mmHg [13-25], p=0.04) compared to the BE group. 30-day mortality was 2.7% while one-year mortality was 7.5% and comparable between the groups. Survival and stroke incidence were similar in both groups up to 5 years. In conclusion, both SE and BE THVs had comparable survival following ViV-TAVR. The higher residual aortic valve gradients in BE THVs are likely due to valve design and warrant long-term evaluation for potential structural valve degeneration.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement With Balloon- Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Patients With Degenerated Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with favorable outcomes in patients with degenerated stentless bioprosthesis. However, whether the outcomes after ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprosthesis differ between balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) remains unknown. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive patients who underwent ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis with BEVs (n = 42) versus SEVs (n = 17) in a single-health care system between 2013 and 2022. Overall, the mean age was 70.8 years and 74.6% were men. The mean transcatheter valve size was 26.3 ± 2.2 mm for BEVs and 26.4 ± 4 mm for SEVs (p = 0.93). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.0 ± 3.6 for BEVs and 7.5 ± 5.5 for SEVs (p = 0.22). Compared with patients who received BEVs, those who received SEVs had higher rates of device malposition (2.4% vs 23.5%, p <0.01), postdeployment balloon dilation (11.9% vs 35.5%, p = 0.04) and need for a second transcatheter device (2.4% vs 35.5%, p <0.01). However, both groups showed similar improvement in aortic valve function at 30-day and 1-year follow-up (incidence of 1-year severe patient-prosthesis mismatch in BEVs: 17.6% vs 14.3% in SEVs, p = 0.78). The 1- and 3-year mortality did not differ between BEVs and SEVs (11.9% vs 11.8% and 25% vs 30%, respectively, Log rank p = 0.9). In conclusion, performing ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis is technically challenging, especially when using SEVs; however, satisfactory positioning is possible in most cases, with excellent hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with BEVs and SEVs.

Failure of Surgical Aortic Valve Prostheses: An Analysis of Heart Team Decisions and Postoperative Outcomes.

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

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.

Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Structural valve degeneration is increasingly seen given the higher rates of bioprosthetic heart valve use for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is an attractive alternate for patients who are otherwise at high risk for reoperative surgery. We compared patients who underwent VIV-TAVR and native valve TAVR through a retrospective analysis of our institutional transcatheter valve therapy (TVT) database from 2013 to 2022. Patients who underwent either a native valve TAVR or VIV-TAVR were included. VIV-TAVR was defined as TAVR in patients who underwent a previous surgical aortic valve replacement. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to obtain survival estimates. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for the multivariable analysis of mortality. A total of 3,532 patients underwent TAVR, of whom 198 (5.6%) underwent VIV-TAVR. Patients in the VIV-TAVR cohort were younger than patients who underwent native valve TAVR (79.5 vs 84 years, p <0.001), with comparable number of women and a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (6.28 vs 4.46, p <0.001). The VIV-TAVR cohort had a higher incidence of major vascular complications (2.5% vs 0.8%, p = 0.008) but lower incidence of permanent pacemaker placement (2.5% vs 8.1%, p = 0.004). The incidence of stroke was comparable between the groups (VIV-TAVR 2.5% vs native TAVR 2.4%, p = 0.911). The 30-day readmission rates (VIV-TAVR 7.1% vs native TAVR 9%, p = 0.348), as well as in-hospital (VIV-TAVR 2% vs native TAVR 1.4%, p = 0.46), and overall (VIV-TAVR 26.3% vs native TAVR 30.8%, p = 0.18) mortality at a follow-up of 1.8 years (0.83 to 3.5) were comparable between the groups. The survival estimates were also comparable between the groups (log-rank p = 0.27). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, VIV-TAVR was associated with decreased hazards of death (hazard ratio 0.68 [0.5 to 0.9], p = 0.02). In conclusion, VIV-TAVR is a feasible and safe strategy for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. There may be potentially higher short-term morbidity with VIV-TAVR, with no overt impact on survival.

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valves for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: 1-Year Results of the LYTEN Trial

BackgroundData comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. ObjectivesThe authors sought to compare the 1-year hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valves (BEV) SAPIEN 3/ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valves (SEV) Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR. MethodsPatients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve undergoing ViV-TAVR were randomized to receive a SEV or a BEV. Patients had a clinical and valve hemodynamic (Doppler echocardiography) evaluation at 1-year follow-up. Study outcomes were defined according to VARC-2/VARC-3 criteria. Intended performance of the valve was defined as mean gradient <20 mm Hg, peak velocity <3 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≥0.25 and less than moderate AR. ResultsA total of 98 patients underwent ViV-TAVR (46 BEV, 52 SEV). At 1-year follow-up, patients receiving a SEV had a lower mean transaortic gradient (22 ± 8 mm Hg BEV vs 14 ± 7 mm Hg SEV; P < 0.001), and a higher rate of intended valve performance (BEV: 30%, SEV:76%; P < 0.001). There were no cases of greater than mild aortic regurgitation. There were no differences in functional status (NYHA functional class >II, BEV: 7.3%, SEV: 4.1%; P = 0.505) or quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, BEV: 77.9 ± 21.2, SEV: 81.8 ± 14.8; P = 0.334). No differences in all-cause mortality (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 3.8; P = 0.495), heart failure hospitalization (BEV: 6.5%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.214), stroke (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.369), myocardial infarction (BEV: 0%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.347), or pacemaker implantation (BEV: 2.2%, SEV: 1.9%; P = 0.898) were found. ConclusionsIn patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for failed small aortic bioprostheses, those receiving a SEV exhibited a better valve hemodynamic profile at 1-year follow-up. There were no differences between SEV and BEV regarding functional status, quality of life, or clinical outcomes.

Two-Year Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Using New-Generation Transcatheter Devices Compared With Redo-SAVR

Few studies have compared the clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) with new-generation valves and re-operative surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR). We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-TAVR with those of patients who underwent Redo-SAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2015 and 2021. New-generation valves were used for ViV-TAVR. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30days and 2years. In-hospital procedural and clinical outcomes were also compared between the groups. A total of 256 patients (140 who underwent ViV-TAVR and 116 who underwent Redo-SAVR) were eligible for PSM. In the unmatched cohort, patients in the ViV-TAVR group were older and had more co-morbidities than those in the Redo-SAVR group. After PSM, there were no significant differences in all-cause death between the ViV-TAVR and Redo-SAVR groups at 30days (3.9% vs 2.6%, p=0.65) or 2years (6.5% vs 7.8%, p=0.75). The incidences of stroke and heart failure rehospitalization were similar at 30days and 2years. The cumulative complication rates during hospitalization were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVR group than in the Redo-SAVR group (11.7% vs 28.6% p=0.015). The long-term outcomes of ViV-TAVR using new-generation valves were similar to those of Redo-SAVR, although ViV-TAVR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital complications.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Perceval Bioprosthesis: Clinical and Technical Aspects in 32 Cases.

Sutureless aortic bioprostheses are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross-clamp time and facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. As the use of sutureless valves has increased over the past decade, we begin to encounter their degeneration. We describe clinical outcomes and technical aspects in patients with degenerated sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). Between March 2011 and March 2023, 1310 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Severe bioprosthesis degeneration treated with VIV-TAVR occurred in 32 patients with a mean of 6.4 ± 1.9 years (range: 2-10 years) after first implantation. Mean EuroSCORE II was 9.5 ± 6.4% (range: 1.9-35.1%). Thirty of thirty-two (94%) VIV-TAVR were performed via transfemoral and two (6%) via transapical approach. Vascular complications occurred in two patients (6%), and mean hospital stay was 4.6 ± 2.4 days. At mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 15.2 months (range: 1-50 months), survival was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 18.7 ± 5.3 mmHg. VIV-TAVR is a useful option for degenerated Perceval and appears safe and effective. This procedure is associated with good clinical results and excellent hemodynamic performance in our largest single-center experience.

Impact of reintervention after index aortic valve replacement on the risk of subsequent mortality

ObjectivesThe use of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is inherently associated with a risk of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and the need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention. We sought to evaluate whether AV reintervention, in the form of repeat surgical AVR (SAVR) or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), negatively affects patients’ subsequent long-term survival after index SAVR. MethodsWe identified patients who had undergone bioprosthetic SAVR from 2002 to 2017 at our institution. Median longitudinal follow-up after index SAVR was 7.3 years (10.9 years for those with and 7.2 years for those without AV reintervention), and median follow-up after AV reintervention was 1.9 years. Cox regression analyses using AV reintervention (re-SAVR and ViV-TAVR) as a time-varying covariate were used to determine the impact of reintervention on subsequent survival. ResultsOf 4167 patients who underwent index SAVR, 139 (3.3%) required AV reintervention for SVD, with re-SAVR being performed in 65 and ViV-TAVR in 74. Median age at the index SAVR was 73 years (interquartile range, 64-79 years), and 2541 (61%) were male. Overall, there were total of 1171 mortalities observed, of which 13 occurred after re-SAVR and 9 after ViV-TAVR. AV reintervention was associated with a greater risk of subsequent mortality compared with those patients who did not require AV reintervention (hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.88, P < .001). This increased risk of subsequent mortality was more pronounced for those who received their index AVR when <65 years of age (hazard ratio, 5.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.57-12.22, P < .001) versus those ≥65 years (2.06, 1.21-3.52, P = .008). Direct comparison of survival between those who underwent re-SAVR versus ViV-TAVR showed 5-year survival to be comparable (re-SAVR: 74% vs ViV-TAVR: 80%, P = .67). ConclusionsAmong patients receiving bioprosthetic AVR, an AV reintervention for SVD is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality, regardless of re-SAVR or ViV-TAVR, and this risk is greater among younger patients. These findings should be balanced with individual preferences at index AVR in the context of patients’ lifetime management of aortic stenosis.

Bioprosthetic Valve Remodeling in Nonfracturable Surgical Valves: Impact on THV Expansion and Hydrodynamic Performance

BackgroundThere are limited data on the effect of bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) on transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and function following valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a nonfracturable surgical heart valve (SHV). ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the impact of BVR of nonfracturable SHVs on THVs after VIV implantation. MethodsVIV TAVR was performed using 23-mm SAPIEN3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences) or 23/26-mm Evolut Pro (Medtronic) THVs implanted in 21/23-mm Trifecta (Abbott Structural Heart) and 21/23-mm Hancock (Medtronic) SHVs with BVR performed with a noncompliant TRUE balloon (Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc). Hydrodynamic assessment was performed, and multimodality imaging including micro–computed tomography was performed before and after BVR to assess THV and SHV expansion. ResultsBVR resulted in limited improvement of THV expansion. The largest gain in expansion was observed for the S3 in the 21-mm Trifecta with up to a 12.7% increase in expansion at the outflow of the valve. Minimal change was observed at the level of the sewing ring. The Hancock was less amenable to BVR with lower final expansion dimensions than the Trifecta. BVR also resulted in notable surgical post flaring of up to 17.6°, which was generally more marked with the S3 than with the Evolut Pro. Finally, BVR resulted in very limited improvement in hydrodynamic function. Severe pinwheeling was observed with the S3, which improved slightly but persisted despite BVR. ConclusionsWhen performing VIV TAVR inside a Trifecta and Hancock SHV, BVR had a limited impact on THV expansion and resulted in SHV post flaring with unknown consequences on coronary obstruction risk and long-term THV function.

Reoperation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Insights from 10 years' experience

ObjectiveUse of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated dramatic growth in the past decade. This study aims to investigate implications of post-TAVR reoperation from our 10-year experience. MethodsBetween 2011 and 2022, 66 post-TAVR patients underwent a reoperation, consisting of 42 (63.6%) patients with native TAVR and 24 (36.4%) patients with valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement. ResultsThe aggregate proportion of patients belonging to the low-/intermediate-risk group at the time of TAVR exceeded that of the high-/extreme-risk cohort in 2021. The native TAVR group received a larger TAVR valve, whereas more frequent low-risk status at the time of TAVR than the VIV-TAVR group. Concurrent procedures were highly common during reoperation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement represented only 18.2% of the entire cohort. The native TAVR group demonstrated significantly higher TAVR explant difficulty index score (2.0 vs 1.0 points; P < .001) and operative mortality (14.2% vs 0%; P = .079) compared with the VIV-TAVR group. The 8-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 1.9% and 14.1% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.1-15.9; P < .001) in the native and VIV-TAVR group, respectively. Furthermore, cumulative incidence of valve reintervention, combining reoperations and redo TAVRs, was 3.3% and 19.0% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.6-10.9; P < .001). ConclusionsLow-/intermediate-risk patients are emerging as the predominant group necessitating reoperations. Native TAVR was associated with lower postimplant reintervention rates, albeit with higher reoperative technical difficulty and mortality. Conversely, VIV-TAVR was associated with higher reintervention, but demonstrated lower technical difficulty and mortality for reoperation.

Coronary Obstruction during Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Pre-Procedural Risk Evaluation, Intra-Procedural Monitoring, and Follow-Up.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is emerging as an effective treatment for patients with symptomatically failing bioprosthetic valves and a high prohibitive surgical risk; a longer life expectancy has led to a higher demand for these valve reinterventions due to the increased possibilities of outliving the bioprosthetic valve's durability. Coronary obstruction is the most feared complication of valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR; it is a rare but life-threatening complication and occurs most frequently at the left coronary artery ostium. Accurate pre-procedural planning, mainly based on cardiac computed tomography, is crucial to determining the feasibility of a ViV TAVR and to assessing the anticipated risk of a coronary obstruction and the eventual need for coronary protection measures. Intraprocedurally, the aortic root and a selective coronary angiography are useful for evaluating the anatomic relationship between the aortic valve and coronary ostia; transesophageal echocardiographic real-time monitoring of the coronary flow with a color Doppler and pulsed-wave Doppler is a valuable tool that allows for a determination of real-time coronary patency and the detection of asymptomatic coronary obstructions. Because of the risk of developing a delayed coronary obstruction, the close postprocedural monitoring of patients at a high risk of developing coronary obstructions is advisable. CT simulations of ViV TAVR, 3D printing models, and fusion imaging represent the future directions that may help provide a personalized lifetime strategy and tailored approach for each patient, potentially minimizing complications and improving outcomes.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure.

In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR). A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed. In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074). VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

254 DIFFERENT DEGREES OF DEGENERATION OF TRANSCATHETER VALVES IMPLANTED IN THE AORTIC POSITION OR EMBOLIZED DISTALLY: A CASE REPORT

Abstract While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) gradually emerges as first line therapy for aortic disease in most surgical risk groups, structural prosthetic degeneration remains an issue that may must be considered when planning procedures in younger patients. We present the case of a 74 years old female who underwent a valve-in-valve TAVR following degeneration of a previously implanted TAVR which had initially been complicated by distal embolization of two prosthetic valves. The patient initially underwent TAVR in 2010 for severe aortic regurgitation and a porcelain aorta. The procedure was complicated by distal embolization of two prosthetic valves; firstly a 26 mm Sapien valve migrated to the pre-renal abdominal aorta. This was followed by the embolization of a 29 mm CoreValve to the descending thoracic aorta. Finally, on the third attempt, a 29 mm CoreValve was successfully implanted without complication. The patient remained clinically stable until February 2022 when she developed progressively worsening effort angina and dyspnea. Echocardiographic evaluation demonstrated prosthetic aortic valve degeneration with cusp fibrosis and calcification, with severe aortic regurgitation. Interestingly, neither of the embolized prosthetic valves showed signs of deterioration on CT imaging. The valve that had migrated to the abdominal aorta did not show any significant increase in gradient or regurgitation on Doppler evaluation. After careful evaluation and Heart Team discussion, a transfemoral valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure was performed uneventfully with a 23 mm Sapien Ultra implant, that resulted in complete abolition of regurgitation with mild prosthesis-patient mismatch (mean gradient 15 mmHg, EOA 0.8 cm2/m2). Post-procedural CT imaging confirmed a satisfactory result with no signs of dislocation of the previous valve prostheses (Figure 3). The patient was safely discharged on day 4 post-op on oral anticoagulation (due to a history of atrial fibrillation), and was asymptomatic at 30-day follow-up. This case report describes a challenging but successful ViV TAVR implantation.

Hemodynamic follow-up after valve-in-valve TAVR for failed aortic bioprosthesis.

"valve-in-valve" TAVR(VIV-TAVR) is established and provides good initial clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Lacking long-term durability data baffle the expand to lower risk patients. For those purposes, the present study adds a hemodynamic 3-years follow-up. A total of 77 patients underwent VIV-TAVR for failing aortic bioprosthesis during a 7-years period. Predominant mode of failure was stenosis in 87.0%. Patients had a mean age of 79.4 ± 5.8 years and a logistic EuroSCORE of 30.8 ± 15.7%. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-PROM averaged 5.79 ± 2.63%. Clinical results and hemodynamic outcomes are reported for 30-days, 1-, 2-, and 3-years. Completeness of follow-up was 100% with 44 patients at risk after 3-years. Follow-up ranged up to 7.1 years. Majority of the surgical valves were stented (94.8%) with a mean labeled size of 23.1 ± 2.3 mm and true-ID of 20.4 ± 2.6 mm. A true-ID≤21 mm had 58.4% of the patients. Self-expanding valves were implanted in 68.8% (mean labeled size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm) and balloon-expanded in 31.2% (mean size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm). No patient died intraoperatively. Hospital mortality was 1.3% and three-years survival 57.1%. All patients experienced an initial significant dPmean-reduction to 16.8 ± 7.1 mmHg. After 3-years mean dPmean raised to 26.0 ± 12.2 mmHg. This observation was independent from true-ID or type of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-prosthesis. Patients with a true-ID≤21 mm had a higher initial (18.3 ± 5.3vs. 14.9 ± 7.1 mmHg; p = .005) and dPmean after 1-year (29.2 ± 8.2vs. 13.0 ± 6.7 mmHg; p = .004). There were no significant differences in survival. VIV-TAVR is safe and effective in the early period. In surgical valves with a true-ID≤21 mm inferior hemodynamic and survival outcomes must be expected. Nonetheless, also patients with larger true-IDs showed steadily increasing transvalvular gradients. This raises concern about durability.

New adverse coronary events in valve-in-valve TAVR and native TAVR-A 2-year matched cohort.

ObjectiveTo assess the incidence of new adverse coronary events (NACE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and valve-in-valve TAVR (ViV-TAVR).BackgroundViV-TAVR is an accepted treatment for degenerative prostheses among patients with high surgical-risk. TAVR studies have suggested an increased risk of coronary artery obstruction and flow stasis causing thrombus formation. Whether contemporary ViV-TAVR is associated with higher rate of coronary events compared to TAVR is unknown.MethodsWe used data from 1,224 TAVR patients between 2016 and 2021. We propensity-matched patients following ViV-TAVR and TAVR by significant predictors to overcome confounders in patients' baseline characteristics and procedural factors.ResultsThe matched population included 129 patients in each group. In line with prior reports, there was a higher in-hospital coronary artery obstruction rate with ViV-TAVR (3.1 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.23). Despite this, 2-year cumulative NACE rates were similar between groups (4.7 vs. 6.2%, respectively, p = 0.79), with no difference between its components: myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.210), unplanned coronary catheterization (p = 0.477), or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (p = 0.998). Moreover, hypoattenuated leaflets thickening (HALT) at 30-day CT was observed in nearly a quarter of the patients with no difference between groups (23.9 vs. 23.1%, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.50–1.28, p = 0.872). The progression rate of the coronary artery calcium score (CACS), assessed in a third of patients, was similar between groups (p log-rank = 0.468, 95% CI 0.12–1.24). Low coronary artery height was an unfavorable predictor for in-hospital coronary obstruction and 2-year NACE rate (HR 1.20 and HR 1.25, p = 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively).ConclusionAt 2-year follow-up, ViV-TAVR was not associated with a higher rate of myocardial infarction, unplanned catheterization, coronary artery bypass grafting, or hypoattenuated leaflet thickening.

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.

Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing: In vitro Testing of Edwards PERIMOUNT Model P 2900.

BackgroundBioprosthetic valve fracturing (BVF) results in low gradients following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR). For the commonly used Edwards PERIMOUNT valve data from bench-testing are lacking to provide technical specifications for successful BVF during ViV-TAVR.MethodsUsing four Perimount 19- and 21-mm valves, in-vitro high-pressure balloon valvuloplasty with the True Dilatation Balloon Valvuloplasty Catheter and Atlas Gold PTA Dilatation Catheter was performed to analyze balloon-oversizing and pressure-thresholds to successfully achieve BVF.ResultsHigh-pressure balloons one millimeter larger than the labeled valve size and pressure rates of 20 atm (for Perimount 19-mm) and > 22 atm (for Perimount 21-mm) were required to achieve BVF. Caliper measurements demonstrated 2.5 mm (Perimount 19-mm) and 1.5 mm (Perimount 21-mm) enlarged inner prosthetic diameters after BVF. The Atlas TM Gold PTA Dilatation Catheter achieved BVF with the Perimount 21-mm, whereas the True TM Dilatation Balloon Valvuloplasty Catheter failed in the Perimount 21-mm either for balloon-rupture or pinhole-defect.ConclusionBoth 19-mm and 21-mm Perimount P 2900 are amendable to BVF, thereby increasing the inner prosthetic diameter. High-pressure balloons 1 mm larger than the labeled valves are essential for this purpose, and the Atlas Gold PTA Dilatation Catheter alone should ensure success in the 21-mm prosthetics.

Balloon- vs Self-Expanding Valve Systems for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses

BackgroundData comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic results between the balloon-expandable valve (BEV) SAPIEN (3/ULTRA, Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valve (SEV) Evolut (R/PRO/PRO+, Medtronic) in ViV-TAVR. MethodsPatients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve were randomized to receive a BEV or an SEV. The primary endpoint was valve hemodynamics (maximal/mean residual gradients, severe prosthesis patient mismatch [PPM], or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 30 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography. ResultsA total of 102 patients were randomized, and of these, 98 patients finally underwent a ViV-TAVR procedure (BEV: n = 46, SEV: n = 52). The procedure was successful in all cases, with no differences in clinical outcomes at 30 days between groups (no death or stroke events). Patients in the SEV group exhibited lower mean and maximal transvalvular gradient values (15 ± 8 mm Hg vs 23 ± 8 mm Hg; P ˂ 0.001; 28 ± 16 mm Hg vs 40 ± 13 mm Hg, P ˂ 0.001), and a tendency toward a lower rate of severe PPM (44% vs 64%; P = 0.07). There were no cases of moderate-severe aortic regurgitation. In total, 55 consecutive patients (SEV: n = 27; BEV: n = 28) underwent invasive valve hemodynamic evaluation during the procedure, with no differences in mean and peak transvalvular gradients between both groups (P = 0.41 and P = 0.70, respectively). ConclusionsIn patients with small failed aortic bioprostheses, ViV-TAVR with an SEV was associated with improved valve hemodynamics as evaluated by echocardiography. There were no differences between groups in intraprocedural invasive valve hemodynamics and 30-day clinical outcomes (Comparison of the Balloon-Expandable Edwards Valve and Self-Expandable CoreValve Evolut R or Evolut PRO System for the Treatment of Small, Severely Dysfunctional Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses. The 'LYTEN' Trial; NCT03520101)

Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Valves and Adjunctive Therapies

While redo surgical aortic valve replacement has traditionally been the gold standard for the treatment of failed surgical valves, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable, less invasive option with the potential for improved short-term morbidity and mortality. Retrospective registry data regarding ViV TAVR outcomes have been encouraging, with excellent 1-year mortality, and sustained valve performance and quality of life improvement out to 3 years. Operators must be comfortable with CT analysis for procedural planning, and be able to identify and troubleshoot patients who are at risk for coronary obstruction and patient prosthesis mismatch. The authors provide a review of clinical outcomes associated with ViV TAVR, procedural planning recommendations, and strategies to overcome technical challenges that can occur during ViV TAVR.