Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Trans-Catheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Failure

Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure is a valid treatment option for patients affected by bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) degeneration. However, ViV implantation is technically more challenging compared to native trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A deep knowledge of the mechanism and features of the failed BHV is pivotal to plan an adequate procedure. Multimodal imaging is fundamental in the diagnostic and pre-procedural phases. The main challenges associated with ViV TAVR consist of a higher risk of coronary obstruction, severe post-procedural patient-prosthesis mismatch, and a difficult coronary re-access. In this review, we describe the principles of ViV TAVR.

Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes.

This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR). Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study. ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001). ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

Hemodynamic outcomes after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a single-center experience.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as a safe, effective alternative to redo aortic valve surgery in high-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. However, ViV-TAVR has been associated high postprocedural valvular gradients, compared with TAVR for native-valve aortic stenosis. We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for a degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2019 at our center. The primary outcome was postprocedural mean aortic valve gradient. Outcomes were compared across surgical valve type (stented versus stentless), surgical valve internal diameter (≤19 versus >19 mm), and transcatheter aortic valve type (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable). Overall, 89 patients underwent ViV-TAVR. Mean age was 69.0±12.6 years, 61% were male, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 5.4 [interquartile range, 3.2-8.5]. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenotic (58% of patients), regurgitant (24%), or mixed (18%). The surgical valve was stented in 75% of patients and stentless in 25%. The surgical valve's internal diameter was ≤19 mm in 45% of cases. A balloon-expandable transcatheter valve was used in 53% of procedures. Baseline aortic valve area and mean gradients were 0.87±0.31 cm2 and 36±18 mmHg, respectively. These improved after ViV-TAVR to 1.38±0.55 cm2 and 18±11 mmHg at a median outpatient follow-up of 331 [67-394] days. Higher postprocedural mean gradients were associated with surgical valves having an internal diameter ≤19 mm (24±13 versus 16±8, P=0.002) and with stented surgical valves (22±11 versus 12±6, P<0.001). ViV-TAVR is an effective option for treating degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses, with acceptable hemodynamic outcomes. Small surgical valves and stented surgical valves are associated with higher postprocedural gradients.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated stentless aortic bioroots.

Open surgical repair of a failed valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) or stentless bioroot aortic root replacement (bio-ARR) entails significant operative risks. Whether valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is feasible in patients with a previous VSARR or stentless bio-ARR remains unclear, given lingering concerns about the ill-defined aortic annulus in these patients and the potential for coronary obstruction. We present our experience with patients who had a previous VSARR or stentless bio-ARR and underwent ViV-TAVR to repair a degenerated aortic valve with combined valvular disease, aortic insufficiency and aortic stenosis. In this retrospective data review, we identified and analyzed consecutive patients with a previous VSARR or stentless bio-ARR who underwent ViV-TAVR between December 1, 2014 and August 31, 2019. ViV-TAVR was performed in twelve high-risk patients with previous VSARR or bio-ARR during the study period. Of these, seven received Medtronic Freestyle porcine stentless bioprosthetic aortic roots, three received homograft aortic roots, one underwent a Ross procedure and one underwent VSARR. ViV-TAVR restored satisfactory valve function in all patients, and technical success was 100%. No patient had more than mild regurgitation after implantation. No thirty-day mortality was seen. One patient had major bleeding after transapical access, one patient had a transient ischemic stroke, and one patient needed permanent pacemaker implantation. At a median last follow-up of 21.5 months (interquartile range, 9.0-69.0 months), all patients remained alive and had satisfactory valve function. In this study, ViV-TAVR was a clinically effective option for treating patients with a failed stentless bio-ARR or previous VSARR. Short-term and intermediate-term results after these procedures were favorable. These findings may have important implications for treating high-risk patients with structural aortic root deterioration and call for better transcatheter heart valves that are suitable for treating aortic insufficiency.

Meta-analysis comparing valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve.

The comparative efficacy and safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo-surgical AVR (redo-SAVR) in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves remain unknown. Digital databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Unadjusted odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using a random effect model. A total of 11 studies comprising 8326 patients (ViV-TAVR=4083 and redo-SAVR=4243) were included. The mean age of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR was older, 76 years compared to 73 years for those undergoing SAVR. The baseline characteristics for patients in ViV-TAVR vs. redo-SAVR groups were comparable. At 30-days, the odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.68, p=.0002), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, p=.001) and major bleeding (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.54, p=.0001) were significantly lower in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR. There were no significant differences in the odds of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.52-1.58, p=.74), myocardial infarction (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44-1.92, p=.83) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27-1.07, p=.08) between the two groups. During mid to long-term follow up (6-months to 5-years), there were no significant differences between ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and stroke. ViV-TAVR was, however, associated with higher risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and greater transvalvular pressure gradient post-implantation. ViV-TAVR compared to redo-SAVR appears to be associated with significant improvement in short term mortality and major bleeding. For mid to long-term follow up, the outcomes were similar for both groups.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: Predictors of outcome and follow-up. Results from a multicenter study.

To evaluate outcome and its predictors of bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) in patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). BVF is feasible and reduces transvalvular gradients in VIV-TAVR-procedures, but follow-up-data and information on factors influencing the outcome are missing. The 81 cases of BVF-VIV-TAVR were collected from 14 international centers. Predominantly transcatheter heart valve (THV) was implanted first, followed by BVF. VARC-2 defined device success was 93%, most failures were attributed to residual high gradients. Mean gradients decreased from 37 ± 13 mmHg to 10.8 ± 5.9 mmHg (p< 0.001). BVF reduced the gradient by 16 mmHg. During follow-up (FU, 281± 164 days) mean gradient remained stable (10.8± 5.9 mmHg at discharge, 12.4± 6.3 mmHg at FU, p=ns). In-hospital major adverse events occurred in 3.7%. Event-free survival at 276± 237.6 days was 95.4%. The linear mixed model identified balloon-expandable valves (BEV), Mitroflow surgical valve, stenotic surgical bioprostheses and balloon only 1 mm larger than the true internal diameter of the surgical valve as predictors for higher gradients. BVF is safe and can significantly reduce gradients, which remain stable at FU. BEV, Mitroflow surgical valve, stenotic bioprostheses and balloon larger than the true internal diameter of the surgical valve of only 1 mm are predictors for higher final gradients.

Valve-in-Surgical-Valve With SAPIEN 3 for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality.

The use of valve-in-valve–transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) in degenerated aortic bioprosthesis has been increasing, but the Food and Drug Administration approval is limited to high-risk patients. We analyzed the real-world experience of SAPIEN 3 VIV-TAVR, especially in lower-risk patients, based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. All transfemoral VIV-TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 and Ultra valves between June 2015 and January 2020 were identified using the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry. Patients were grouped based on STS score (low score: <4%, intermediate score: 4%≤ and≤8%, high score: >8%). Propensity-matched (1:3) analysis was conducted to compare to patients undergoing native TAVR. Of 145 917 SAPIEN 3 TAVR patients, 4460 (3%) underwent transfemoral VIV-TAVR with available baseline STS data in 4276 patients. Average age was 73.9±11.2, 66.4% were male, and the mean STS score was 6.9±6.0%. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.4% (observed to expected ratio, 0.33), and 1-year mortality was 10.8%. 30-day mortality and observed to expected ratio were 0.9% and 0.32 in low-score, 2.2% and 0.38 in the intermediate-score, and 4.3% and 0.31 in the high-score group. Based on propensity-matched analysis, 30-day mortality was similar and 1-year mortality was lower in VIV compared to native TAVR among all risk groups. When the groups were analyzed based on the Heart Team risk stratification using high-risk and non–high risk, the findings remained consistent. In this real-world study, VIV-TAVR had excellent 30-day and 1-year outcomes, especially in lower-risk patients. These findings may suggest the feasibility and expansion of VIV-TAVR in lower-risk patients. However, long-term follow-up continues to be crucial.

Intraprocedural high degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with native versus bioprosthetic aortic valves

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction One of the most frequent intraprocedural complication of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is high degree atrioventricular block (HDAVB). The incidence varies from 5-20% depending on the type of valve, previous surgical valve replacement (SVR) and basal conduction disturbances. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of intraprocedural HDAVB in patients undergoing TAVR in native valves versus patients with previous SVR derived for valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR). Methods Data was collected from all the patients undergoing TAVI in a single center from December 2007 to July 2019. The primary endpoint was to compare the incidence of HDAVB in patients undergoing TAVR versus patients undergoing VIV-TAVI. The secondary endpoint was to describe the differences in the baseline characteristics of patients that presented with HDAVB vs patients without HDAVB. Results A total of 661 patients were derived for TAVR and separated into 2 groups for analysis. 596 patients with native valves treated with TAVR and 65 patients with previous SVR treated with VIV-TAVI. The primary outcome was present in 87 patients (14,6%) in the TAVR group vs 1 patient (1,54%) in the VIV-TAVR group (p: 0,0033). Patients with HDAVB (n = 88) had a mean age of 83,1 ± 6,26 years. The baseline EKG showed a conduction disturbance in 47,6% of the cases (50% of right bundle branch block; 21,8% of first degree AVB; 15,09% of left bundle branch block and 35,85% of left anterior fascicular block). A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 77 (87,5%) patients. Patients without HDAVB (n = 573) had a mean age of 82,5 ± 6,14 years. The baseline EKG showed a conduction disturbance in 28,91% of the cases (22,73% of Right bundle branch block; 25,68% of first degree AVB; 31,70% of left bundle branch block and 21,25% of left anterior fascicular block). A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 59 (10,30%) patients. Conclusions There is a very low incidence of intraprocedural HDAVB in patients undergoing VIV-TAVR compared to the rest of TAVR procedures (1,54% vs 14,6% p:0,0033). Moreover, the only predictors that associated with the development of HDAVB where previous right bundle branch block and left anterior fasicular hemiblock. The development of intraprocedural HDAVB is associated with the need of a new permanent pacemaker. Table 1: Basal CharacteristicsNo HDAVBHDAVBp VALUEAge, yrs82,683,10,453Basal conduction disturbance28,91 %47,62 %&amp;lt;0,0001PPM implantation10,3 %85,2 %&amp;lt;0,0001Basal characteristicsAbstract Figure. Clinical characteristics by groups

Computed tomography analysis of coronary ostia location following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo valve: Implications for coronary access.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is an emerging alternative to re-do surgery. However, the challenge of coronary access (CA) following ViV-TAVR is a potential limitation as TAVR expands to younger lower-risk populations. Using post-implantation computed tomography (CT) scans to evaluate the geometrical relationship between coronary ostia and valve frame in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR with the ACURATE neo valve. Post-implant CT scans of 18 out of 20 consecutive patients treated with the ACURATE neo valve were analyzed. Coronary ostia location in relation to the highest plane (HP) (highest point of the ACURATE neo or surgical valve) was determined. Ostia located below the highest plan were further subclassified according to the gap available between the transcatheter heart valve frame and ostium (transcatheter-to-coronary [TTC] distance). The impact implantation depth has on these geometrical relationships was evaluated. A total of 21 out of 36 coronary ostia (58%) were located below the level of the HP with the left coronary artery (36%) more likely to be affected than the right (22%). Further sub-classification of these ostia revealed a large (>6 mm), moderate (4-6 mm), and small (<4 mm) TTC distance in 57% (12/21), 38% (8/21), and in 6% (1/18) of cases, respectively. At an implantation depth <4 mm compared to >4 mm, all ostia were located below the HP with no difference in post-procedural mean gradients (14.5 mmHg ± 4.7 vs. 12.6 mmHg ± 5.8; p=.5, 95%CI 3.8-7.5). CA following ACURATE neo implantation for ViV-TAVR could potentially be challenging in a significant proportion of patients and specific consideration should be given to the implantation depth.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD). ViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR. Observational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Twelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.87; p=0.017) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95%CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p=0.003), stroke (OR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.55 to 0.76; p<0.001), permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.22 to 2.43; p=0.536), and major bleeding (OR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.93; p=0.034), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR:-3.30; 95%CI:-4.52 to-2.08; p<0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.50; 95%CI: 1.01 to 2.23; p=0.045) and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95%CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p<0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results. ViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Abstract 14342: Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve in Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Introduction: There has been a recent trend towards the increased use of biologic valves at the time of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with an understanding there may be a potential need for future valve intervention. In this study, we compared the clinical outcomes of Redo-SAVR with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIVTAVR) in patients with a prior history of SAVR. Methods: From 2012 to 2019, 263 patients underwent isolated aortic valve reintervention after prior SAVR: VIV-TAVR (n=187) or redo-SAVR (n=86). Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors mortality and aortic reintervention. Sub-analyses were performed to compare VIV-TAVR patients to Redo-SAVR patients undergoing biologic valve explant and implant (Biologic) as well as VIV-TAVR and Redo-SAVR patients matched by STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM). Results: Operative mortality for the Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR was 1.2% (1) and 1.6% (3) respectively (p=0.92). Redo-SAVR patients had an increased stroke rate (7.0% vs 1.1%, p=0.02) and longer postoperative length of stay (7 vs 2 days, p&lt;0.0001). VIV-TAVR patients had a higher rate of ≥1+ paravalvular leak (PVL) (21.4% versus 3%, p=0.0002) and a lesser reduction in transvalvular gradient (-21.9 ± 17.6mmHg vs -30.3 ± 20.7mmHg, p=0.0038). The difference in PVL was maintained during the Biologic Sub-analysis (p=0.0034). In the STS PROM Sub-analysis, early mortality was the same for each group (1.2%), and the differences in PVL (p=0.0002) and in transvalvular gradient reduction (p=0.005) were maintained. Preoperative renal failure (p=0.006) and cerebrovascular disease (p=0.04) were risk factors for mortality and prior myocardial infarction (p=0.04) was a risk factor for aortic reoperation for VIV-TAVR. No risk factors were identified for Redo-SAVR. Conclusions: Aortic valve reintervention following prior SAVR is associated with outstanding clinical outcomes. Both Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR can be performed with lower than expected predicted mortality. Redo-SAVR was associated with increased morbidity compared to VIV-TAVR, but improved valve function and hemodynamics. Differences in long term valve durability and patient survival between these two therapies are yet to be determined.

Isolated Redo Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Valve Replacement

Clinical outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) compared with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) are poorly understood. This study compared short- and midterm outcomes of patients undergoing isolated redo-SAVR vs VIV-TAVR after previous SAVR. A single-institutional review of the initial use of VIV-TAVR from 2012 to 2019 identified 273 patients undergoing VIV-TAVR (n= 187) or redo-SAVR (n= 86) after prior SAVR. Outcomes analysis included a univariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was higher for VIV-TAVR (6.3%; interquartile range [IQR], 3.6%-10.5%) vs redo-SAVR (4.2%; IQR, 2.4%-6.9%; P < .01). VIV-TAVR patients (76 years; IQR, 67.5-82.5 years) were older than redo-SAVR patients (64 years; IQR, 54-72; P < .01). Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR had similar early mortality (1.2% vs 1.6%, P= .92). Two redo-SAVR (2.3%) and 3 VIV-TAVR patients (1.6%) died 4.8 ± 0.5 years and 4.8 ± 1.5 months after discharge, respectively. Redo-SAVR had an increased stroke rate (7.0% vs 1.1%, P= .02). Postoperative mean valve gradients were similar between VIV-TAVR (14 mm Hg; IQR, 9-21 mm Hg) and redo-SAVR patients (12 mm Hg; IQR, 8-20 mm Hg; P= .08). Postprocedure transesophageal echocardiography showed at least mild aortic insufficiency for 24 VIV-TAVR patients (16%) and 2 redo-SAVR patients (2.9%) (P= .01). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 5.2% for the redo-SAVR patients and 28.5% for the VIV-TAVR patients (P= .07). After previous SAVR, redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR can both be performed with acceptable operative results. Despite treating a high-risk patient population, we found redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR both carry similar operative outcomes. Improved valve hemodynamics were observed in redo-SAVR patients compared with VIV-TAVR patients.

Preoperative multidetector computed tomography for isolated surgical aortic valve replacement: Planning for future transcatheter options.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a valuable option in patients with bioprosthetic failure. However, potential issues with ViV TAVR may occur in patients with high-risk anatomy for coronary obstruction and patients with baseline smaller bioprosthetic valves at risk for patient prosthesis mismatch. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to use preoperative electrocardiography-gated, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to (1) identify which would be high risk for coronary occlusion with ViV TAVR, and (2) predict intraoperative SAVR sizing. Among 223 patients from our institutions' database that underwent SAVR for aortic insufficiency (AI) or aortic stenosis (AS) between January 2012 and January 2020, 48 patients had MDCT imaging before surgery (AI; n = 31, AS; n = 17). Of all patients, 67% (n = 32) were bicuspid morphology. With the use of virtual valve implantation, all patients with AI and bicuspid AS had feasible anatomy for ViV TAVR, while 38% of patients with tricuspid AS were high risk for coronary obstruction. There was a strong correlation between actual valve size implanted and preoperative MDCT measurements using annulus average diameter, area, and/or perimeter. Preoperative MDCT in patients undergoing SAVR is a useful tool for lifetime management, particularly in patients with tricuspid AS. Decisions for surgical management may change based on MDCT's ability to predict intraoperative SAVR size and determine which patients may be high-risk candidates for future ViV TAVR due to coronary artery obstruction.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes.

We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. We utilized the nationally weighted 2012-16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.78) compared to re-SAVR. In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Midterm Outcomes for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failed Freestyle Bioprosthesis

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is acceptable in patients at high risk for reoperation. Studies suggest that ViV TAVR in stentless valves may be technically more challenging. This study sought to evaluate midterm outcomes for ViV TAVR in the degenerative Freestyle ((Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN)) stentless bioprosthesis. Between October 2014 and January 2019, 56 patients underwent ViV TAVR for a failed Freestyle valve at a single institution using a commercially available self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve. Patient baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were applied. Mean patient age was 75 ± 8 years and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons mean risk score was 9% ± 8%. The predominant mode of Freestyle valve failure was regurgitation (77%), and 36 patients (64%) required urgent intervention for refractory acute heart failure. Device success using a self-expanding TAVR was 82%, with 6 cases (11%) requiring deployment of two transcatheter valves. There were 3 operative mortalities (5%). At 30-day follow-up, no patient had greater than moderate perivalvular regurgitation. Device success was higher in the later patients compared with patients done earlier (P= .02). Mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days and 1 year were 11 ± 8 and 9 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. For patients alive beyond day 30, 3-year survival was 82%. Performing ViV TAVR in the Freestyle valve using a self-expanding transcatheter valve presents a technical challenge, but may be feasible with good midterm results. Procedural success is associated with an early hazard learning curve.

The first love, you never forget. The last heart valve, you might remember better than the first

Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) does not increase cerebrovascular risk compared with TAVR in native aortic valves; the only predictors of new brain lesions were age and postdilatation. Wise choice of the biological valve at the time of surgical aortic replacement, routine use of cerebral protection devices, and new therapeutic paths may be important. Larger studies are needed, hopefully with systematic postdilatation or bioprosthetic valve fracture in cases of residual high transvalvular gradients after VIV TAVR.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) valve-in-valve (VIV) therapy has been approved for select patients with surgically inoperable bioprosthetic valves that need replacement. Bioprosthetic valve fracturing (BVF) used in conjunction with VIV TAVR can reduce transvalvular gradients and increase the aortic valve area. Twelve patients who underwent BVF VIV TAVR at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Measurements of hemodynamics and aortic valve area were performed at baseline, after VIV TAVR, after BVF, and at 30-day follow-up. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.12 ± 3.5%, with 75% of patients deemed high risk by the heart team. Mean gradients decreased from 44 mm Hg to 15 mm Hg following VIV TAVR, and to 7 mm Hg following BVF. The mean aortic valve area increased from 0.6 cm2 to 1 cm2 following VIV TAVR, and to 1.3 cm2 following BVF. There were no postoperative permanent pacemaker implantations or vascular complications, and at 30 days, only one patient had died. While we report intraoperative mortality, BVF with VIV TAVR can be performed to reduce transvalvular gradients and increase effective aortic valve area in high-surgical-risk patients with failed bioprosthetic valves.

COMPARISON OF IN-HOSPITAL OUTCOMES OF VALVE-IN-VALE TAVR VS REDO BIOPROSTHETIC SAVR- A PROPENSITY MATCHED ANALYSIS

This study aimed to compare the outcomes associated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) with the redo bioprosthetic surgical AVR (SAVR). We utilized the data of the years 2012-2016 from the US National Inpatient Sample to identify patients who were hospitalized for

Bioprosthetic Valve Leaflet Displacement During Valve-in-Valve Intervention: An Ex Vivo Bench Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of different transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on valve leaflet displacement when deployed within bioprosthetic surgical valves and, thereby, risk for coronary obstruction. BackgroundCoronary obstruction is a potentially devastating complication during valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Strategies such as provisional stenting and intentional bioprosthetic valve leaflet laceration have been developed to mitigate this risk. Alternatively, the use of a THV that retracts the bioprosthetic leaflet away from the coronary ostium may prevent coronary obstruction. MethodsA 25-mm J-Valve, a 26-mm Evolut Pro, and a 23-mm JenaValve were implanted into both a 25-mm Trifecta surgical valve and a 25-mm Mitroflow surgical valve. A 23-mm and a 26-mm SAPIEN 3 were deployed into the Trifecta and Mitroflow, respectively. Displacement of the surgical valve leaflets (retraction vs. expansion) was measured with implantation of each THV by measuring displacement angle and maximal displacement distance. ResultsWithin both the Trifecta and Mitroflow valves, implantation of the J-Valve and JenaValve resulted in retraction of the surgical valve leaflets, and placement of the Evolut Pro and SAPIEN 3 resulted in tubular expansion of the surgical valve leaflets. There were significant differences in displacement angles and distances between both the J-Valve and JenaValve and the SAPIEN 3 and Evolut Pro (p < 0.0001). ConclusionsViV implantation with new-generation THVs that directly interact with bioprosthetic valve leaflets results in surgical valve leaflet retraction. This might mitigate the risk for coronary obstruction in selected cases of ViV transcatheter aortic valve replacement and also facilitate coronary reaccess after ViV TAVR.

TCT-34 Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Can Eliminate Pre-Existing Prothesis-Patient Mismatch

A significant number of patients (pts) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) show prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), which increases mortality. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) reduces residual gradients after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR).Our aim was to