Valve-in-valve Research Articles

Long term follow up of percutaneous treatment for degenerated Mitroflow prosthesis with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BackgroundThe durability of aortic valve bioprosthesis and the structural valve deterioration (SVD) are could be treated with valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This technique has been proven to be a feasible procedure with good results in selected patients. The aim of this work was to assess the long-term results of this TAVI with an autoexpandable valve in patients with failed Mitroflow (MF) bioprosthetic aortic valves.MethodsSingle center, observational and prospective study that included 65 consecutive patients with symptomatic failed MF bioprosthetic aortic valve, treated with VIV-TAVI. The primary endpoints were clinical long-term events including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, re-hospitalization due to heart failure, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the absence of SVD or patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and valve hemodynamics analysis at follow-up.ResultsBetween March 2012 to July 2019, 65 symptomatic patients (age 80.4±5.9 years) with degenerated MF valves (numbers 19: 27.7%; 21: 38.5%; 23: 21.5%; 25: 12.3%) underwent CoreValve (n=11) or Evolut R (n=54) implantation (23, 26 and 29 mm sizes). The STS predicted risk of mortality was 6.39%±5.62%. The primary combined endpoint occurred in 32.3% of the cases. A total of 13 patients (20%) died during follow-up, but 4 (7.3%) from cardiovascular causes. Two patients were reported of having a stroke/TIA and 5 readmissions for cardiovascular causes were reported (2 of them within the first 30 days). Twenty-five patients (38.5%) presented PPM during follow-up, being PPM severe in 15 (23.1%).ConclusionsSelf-expanding TAVI for degenerated MF bioprosthesis has favourable long-term outcomes. It is a good option in order to avoid the risks of redo surgery in selected patients.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves.

Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV. A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2-12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01-1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11-1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis-patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31-14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36-10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26-8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.78)]. The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure is a safe alternative to conventional reoperation for bioprosthetic dysfunction. Balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve (SEV) are the 2 major types of devices used. Evidence regarding the comparison of the 2 valves remains scarce. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of BEV and SEV in transcatheter VIV for aortic bioprostheses dysfunction. A computerized search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed. English-language journal articles reporting SEV or BEV outcomes of at least 10 patients were included. In total, 27 studies were included, with 2,269 and 1,671 patients in the BEV and SEV groups, respectively. Rates of 30-day mortality and stroke did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, BEV was associated with significantly lower rates of postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (3.8% vs. 12%; P < 0.001). Regarding echocardiographic parameters, SEV was associated with larger postprocedural effective orifice area at 30 days (1.53 cm2 vs. 1.23 cm2; P < 0.001) and 1 year (1.55 cm2 vs. 1.22 cm2; P < 0.001). For patients who underwent transcatheter aortic VIV, SEV was associated with larger postprocedural effective orifice area but higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation. These findings provide valuable information for optimizing device selection for transcatheter aortic VIV.

Incidence, predictors and outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVI: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AimsSurgical aortic valve replacement has been the treatment of choice for patients with aortic valve disease before the arrival of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI), although limited by degeneration of the bioprosthesis. “Redo” intervention itself is burdened by high risk of complications and valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVI could be a valid strategy of redo for patients with comorbidities. Methods and resultsTwo independent reviewers screened all studies investigating patients undergoing ViV TAVI. Mortality at 30 days and at 1 year was the primary end point. Of 286 studies identified, 26 articles were included in this review with a total of 1448 patients. Median age was 78.8 years, 57.7% male. Median STS score and Logistic EuroSCORE were 9.4% and 31.3% respectively. Stenosis (45%) was the leading cause of prosthesis failure. Transfemoral approach was preferred (76%), with a prevalence of balloon expandable valves (73.3%). Mean follow up was 376 days. Overall and cardiovascular mortality at 30 days was 6.5% and 5.5% respectively, while at 1 year it was 14.5% and 8.9% respectively. At meta-regression analysis study year (p < .001), Logistic EuroSCORE (p < .01) and valve diameter ≤ 21 mm (p < .05) at 30 days, and stenosis as reason for failure (p = .05) at 1 year were identified as possible predictors of survival. ConclusionsViV TAVI offers a valid strategy to treat high risk patients with a failure of bioprosthesis with satisfying results in terms of short and mid-term mortality. Future studies are needed to find predictors of long term survival and outcomes in lower risk patients.

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.

Intentional bioprosthetic tricuspid valve fracture to facilitate transcatheter valve‐in‐valve deployment

While transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation may reduce the number of lifetime surgical reinterventions in some patients with congenital heart disease, in other patients the bioprosthetic valve ring can lead to patient-prosthesis mismatch due to reduction of internal diameter if a transcatheter valve is implanted. A 49-year-old woman with multiple prior cardiac surgeries presented with heart failure due to bioprosthetic tricuspid valve stenosis. Initial predilation valvuloplasty suggested conventional ViV implant would produce patient-prosthesis mismatch, therefore, we intentionally fractured the bioprosthetic valve ring to facilitate optimal hemodynamics with implantation of a 29 mm transcatheter valve.

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.

Meta-analysis Comparing Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to redo-surgery in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses. It remains unclear whether outcomes vary when using either self-expanding (SE) or balloon-expandable (BE) valves. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between SE and BE transcatheter heart valves when used for ViV TAVI. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was performed identifying studies reporting outcomes following ViV TAVI. Event rates were pooled for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 3-year mortality in addition to standard safety outcomes after the procedure as per the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Nineteen studies reporting outcomes for 1,772 patients were included: 924 in the SE group and 848 patients in the BE group. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 12 months (SE 10.3% vs BE 12.6%, p = 0.165, I2 = 0%), or 3 years (SE 21.2% vs BE 31.2%, p = 0.407, I2 = 63.79). SE valves had lower transvalvular gradients after procedure and acute kidney injury, but higher rates of pacemaker insertion, moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation and need for ≥2 valves (all p < 0.05). There were no differences in stroke, coronary obstruction, bleeding, or vascular complications. Despite significant differences in key procedural outcomes between SE and BE valves when used for ViV TAVI, we found no difference in 12-month mortality. Tailored device selection may further reduce the risk of adverse procedural outcomes, particularly over the longer term.

Mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis: Insights from PARTNER 2 Valve-in-Valve Registry.

Valve-in-valve (VIV) treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a viable option for patients with failing aortic bioprosthetic valves. Optimal management of those with concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) remains undetermined. Therefore, we sought to assess the implications of concomitant MR in patients undergoing VIV-TAVR. The PARTNER 2 VIV registry enrolled patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis at high risk for reoperation. Patients with core-laboratory echocardiographic assessment of MR were analyzed; severe MR was excluded. We compared patients with ≤mild MR versus moderate MR and assessed changes in MR severity and clinical outcomes. A total of 339 patients (89 initial registry, 250 continued access) underwent VIV procedures; mean age 79.0 ± 10.2 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeon score 8.9 ± 4.5%. At baseline, 228/339 (67.3%) had ≤mild MR and 111/339 (32.7%) had moderate MR. In paired analysis, there was significant improvement in ≥moderate MR from baseline to 30 days (32.6% vs. 14.5%, p < .0001 [n = 304]), and no significant change between 30 days and 1 year (13.4% vs. 12.1%, p = .56 [n = 224]) or 1 year and 2 years (11.0% vs. 10.4%, p = .81 [n = 182]). There was no difference in death or stroke between ≤mild MR and moderate MR at 30 days (4.0% vs. 7.2%, p = .20), 1 year (15.5% vs. 15.3%, p = .98) or 2 years (26.5% vs. 23.5%, p = .67). Moderate concomitant MR tends to improve with VIV-TAVR, and was not a predictor of long-term adverse outcomes in this cohort. In selected patients undergoing VIV-TAVR, it may be appropriate to conservatively manage concomitant MR. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT# 03225001.

A bench test study of bioprosthetic valve fracture performed before versus after transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) may improve transvalvular gradients and transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion during VIV interventions. However, the optimal timing of BVF is unknown. We assessed the impact of timing of BVF (before versus after) for valve-in-valve (VIV) intervention, on hydrodynamic function and THV expansion. Three THV designs were assessed, a 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3), small ACURATE neo (ACn) and 23 mm Evolut R, deployed into 21 mm Mitroflow bioprosthetic surgical valves. We evaluated each THV in three groups: 1) no BVF, 2) BVF before VIV, and 3) BVF after VIV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed using a pulse duplicator to ISO 5840:2013 standard. Transvalvular gradients were lower when BVF was performed after VIV for the S3 (no BVF 15.5 mmHg, BVF before VIV 8.0 mmHg, BVF after VIV 5.6 mmHg), and the ACn (no BVF 9.8 mmHg, BVF before VIV 8.4 mmHg, BVF after VIV 5.1 mmHg). Transvalvular gradients were similar for the Evolut R, irrespective of performance of BVF or timing of BVF. BVF performed after VIV resulted in better expansion in all three THV designs. The ACn and Evolut R samples all had a mild degree of pinwheeling, and BVF timing did not impact on pinwheeling severity. The S3 samples had severe pinwheeling with no BVF, and significant improvement in pinwheeling when BVF was performed after VIV. BVF performed after VIV was associated with superior THV expansion in all three THV designs tested, with lower residual transvalvular gradients in the S3 and ACn THVs. The Evolut R had similar hydrodynamic performance irrespective of BVF timing. Timing of BVF has potential implications on THV function.

Role of computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and valve-in-valve implantation: complete review of preprocedural and postprocedural imaging.

: Since 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of patients with aortic stenosis. A preprocedural assessment of the patient is vital for achieving optimal outcomes from the procedure. Retrospective ECG-gated cardiac computed tomography (CT) today it is the gold-standard imaging technique that provides three-dimensional images of the heart, thus allowing a rapid and complete evaluation of the morphology of the valve, ascending aorta, coronary arteries, peripheral access vessels, and prognostic factors, and also provides preprocedural coplanar fluoroscopic angle prediction to obtain complete assessment of the patient. The most relevant dimension in preprocedural planning of TAVI is the aortic annulus, which can determine the choice of prosthesis size. CT is also essential to identify patients with increased anatomical risk for coronary artery occlusion in Valve in Valve (ViV) procedures.Moreover, CT is very useful in the evaluation of late complications, such as leakage, thrombosis and displacements. At present, CT is the cornerstone imaging modality for the extensive and thorough work-up required for planning and performing each TAVI procedure, to achieve optimal outcomes. Both the CT procedure and analysis should be performed by trained and experienced personnel, with a radiological background and a deep understanding of the TAVI procedure, in close collaboration with the implantation team. An accurate pre-TAVI CT and post-processing for the evaluation of all the points recommended in this review allow a complete planning for the choice of the valve dimensions and type (balloon or self-expandable) and of the best percutaneous access.

A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF VALVE IN VALVE TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT COMPARING BALLOON AND SELF EXPANDING VALVES

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is approved in high-risk patients with failed surgical bioprostheses. It is unclear whether outcomes vary when using self- (SE) or balloon-expanding (BE) valves. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Event

USE OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC 3D-PRINTED MODELS FOR PLANNING, EDUCATION OF HEALTH PERSONNEL, PATIENTS AND FAMILIES IN A VALVE-IN-VALVE TRANSCATHETER VALVE REPLACEMENT

Transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement is a possible treatment strategy in patients with failing bioprosthetic aortic valve. ViV procedures carry specific anatomical challenges, for example, risk of coronary artery obstruction, limitation of valve expansion, and patient-prosthesis mismatch.

CLINICAL PREDICTORS AND OUTCOME IMPACT OF VALVE-IN-VALVE TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Early valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated favorable outcomes. Data on ViV-TAVR using newer generation valves are lacking. Additionally, it remains unclear which patients would benefit most. The purpose of this study was to detail outcomes and

SUPRA-ANNULAR PLACEMENT OF BALLOON EXPANDABLE TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IN SURGICAL VALVE AND SUBSEQUENT FRACTURING OF SURGICAL ANNULUS TO ACHIEVE IDEAL HEMODYNAMICS: A NOVEL TECHNIQUE

Valve-in-Valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be less effective and result in high residual gradient. Proper valve deployment and Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture (BVR) may facilitate in achieving adequate hemodynamics. A 75 year old male with history of CABG with bioprosthetic

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.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for a failing prosthesis is an appealing alternative to redo surgical AVR. We utilized data from the US National Inpatient Sample for the period 2012 to 2016 to identify hospitalizations for either ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital adverse events composite outcome (comprising of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury) and all-cause mortality. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the baseline differences between ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR cohorts. Survey techniques were employed to compare the 2 groups. Over 5 years, there has been a considerable increase in both interventions for prosthetic aortic valve failure, with significantly higher utilization of ViV-TAVI compared to redo-SAVR (p <0.01). Out of the 3,305 hospitalizations for prosthetic aortic valve failure, 1,420 in matched pairs underwent either ViV-TAVI (n = 710) or redo-SAVR (n = 710). ViV-TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital composite adverse outcomes (14.1% vs 25.4%, p = 0.018), and numerically lower but statistically insignificant mortality (<1.0% vs 5.2%; p = 0.06). ViV-TAVI was associated with a decreased length of hospitalization (mean 6.6 vs 9.7 days; p <0.01). In the matched cohort, postoperative bleeding and transfusions were significantly lower for ViV-TAVI compared with redo-SAVR (17.6% vs 31.0% and 12% vs 31% respectively, p <0.01 for both). Acute kidney injury, sepsis, permanent pacemaker implantation, and vascular complications, although numerically better, did not differ between 2 strategies. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with lower in-hospital MACE rates and reduced length of hospitalization compared with redo-SAVR.

Impact of implant depth on hydrodynamic function of the ALLEGRA bioprosthesis in valve-in-valve interventions.

We aimed to assess the impact of implant depth on hydrodynamic function following valve-in-valve (VIV) intervention using the ALLEGRA transcatheter heart valve (THV) in three different surgical valve designs. Multiple implantation depths (+2 mm, -2 mm and -6 mm) were tested using a 23 mm ALLEGRA THV for VIV intervention in 19 mm, 21 mm, 23 mm, and 25 mm Epic, Mitroflow and Magna Ease bioprosthetic valves. Multimodality imaging and hydrodynamic evaluation was performed at each implantation depth. The 23 mm ALLEGRA valve had gradients <20 mmHg in the Mitroflow and Epic valves sized ≥21 mm, and in all sizes of the Magna Ease valve. Gradients did not increase significantly at lower implantation depths. The 19 mm Epic (+2 mm: 20.1±0.6 mmHg, -2 mm: 18.8±0.5 mmHg, -6 mm: 22.8±0.3 mmHg) and 19 mm Mitroflow (+2 mm: 24.1±0.2 mmHg, -2 mm: 31.5±0.3 mmHg, -6 mm: 25.6±0.2 mmHg) valves had elevated mean gradients. In larger sized surgical valves (≥23 mm) the regurgitant fraction was higher at low implantation depths. Pinwheeling was significantly worse in the smaller sized (≤21 mm) surgical valves and also at low (<-2 mm) implantation depth. The 23 mm ALLEGRA valve had favourable (<20 mmHg) gradients in all surgical valves sized ≥21 mm, even when the THV was implanted low. In 19 mm sized Mitroflow and Epic valves, gradients were elevated (>20 mmHg). While there was no major difference in mean transvalvular gradients, leaflet pinwheeling was worse at lower implantation depths.

Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis: Early and Late Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare early and late outcomes between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR. BackgroundPublished studies to date comparing redo surgical AVR (RS) with ViV transcatheter AVR for failed biological prostheses have been small and limited to early outcomes. MethodsClinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, were linked to obtain patients undergoing ViV and RS for failed previous biological prostheses. Propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Early outcomes were compared using the McNemar test. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazards model. ResultsA total of 558 patients undergoing intervention for failed biological prostheses between March 31, 2008, and September 30, 2017, at 11 Ontario institutions (ViV, n = 214; RS, n = 344) were included. Patients who underwent ViV were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching on 27 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n = 131 pairs). Mean time from initial AVR to RS or ViV was 8.6 ± 4.4 years and 11.3 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared with RS (absolute risk difference: −7.5%; 95% confidence interval: −12.6% to −2.3%). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusions were also lower with ViV, as was length of stay. Survival at 5 years was higher with ViV (76.8% vs. 66.8%; hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.99; p = 0.04). ConclusionsViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay and with increased survival compared with RS and may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prostheses.