1-Year Results in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Failed Surgical Bioprostheses

3-Year Outcomes After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprostheses: The PARTNER 2 Registry

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for degenerated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves is associated with favorable early outcomes. However, little is known about the durability and longer-term outcomes associated with this therapy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine late outcomes after valve-in-valve TAVR.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic degeneration of surgical aortic bioprostheses at high risk (≥50% major morbidity or mortality) for reoperative surgery were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 valve-in-valve and continued access registries. Three-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was obtained.

RESULTS

Valve-in-valve procedures were performed in 365 patients. The mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.1 ± 4.7%. At 3 years, the overall Kaplan-Meier estimate of all-cause mortality was 32.7%. Aortic valve re-replacement was required in 1.9%. Mean transaortic gradient was 35.0 mm Hg at baseline, decreasing to 17.8 mm Hg at 30-day follow-up and 16.6 mm Hg at 3-year follow-up. Baseline effective orifice area was 0.93 cm², increasing to 1.13 and 1.15 cm² at 30 days and 3 years, respectively. Moderate to severe aortic regurgitation was reduced from 45.1% at pre-TAVR baseline to 2.5% at 3 years. Importantly, moderate or severe mitral and tricuspid regurgitation also decreased (33.7% vs. 8.6% [p < 0.0001] and 29.7% vs. 18.8% [p = 0.002], respectively). Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 50.7%, increasing to 54.7% at 3 years (p < 0.0001), while left ventricular mass index was 136.4 g/m², decreasing to 109.1 g/m² at 3 years (p < 0.0001). New York Heart Association functional class improved, with 90.4% in class III or IV at baseline and 14.1% at 3 years (p < 0.0001), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score increased (43.1 to 73.1; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

At 3-year follow-up, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure was associated with favorable survival, sustained improved hemodynamic status, and excellent functional and quality-of-life outcomes. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II - PARTNER II - Nested Registry 3/Valve-in-Valve [PII NR3/ViV]; NCT03225001).

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS AND RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT# 03225001.

Imaging for Predicting and Assessing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthetic valve is too small in relation to a patient's body size, thus resulting in high residual postoperative pressure gradients across the prosthesis. Severe PPM occurs in 2% to 20% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is associated with 1.5- to 2.0-fold increase in the risk of mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the role of multimodality imaging in the assessment, prediction, prevention, and management of PPM following AVR. The risk of PPM can be anticipated at the time of AVR by calculating the predicted indexed from the normal reference value of EOA of the selected prosthesis and patient's body surface area. The strategies to prevent PPM at the time of surgical AVR include: 1) implanting a newer generation of prosthetic valve with better hemodynamic; 2) enlarging the aortic root or annulus to accommodate a larger prosthetic valve; or 3) performing TAVR rather than surgical AVR. The identification and quantitation of PPM as well as its distinction versus prosthetic valve stenosis is primarily based on transthoracic echocardiography, but important information may be obtained from other imaging modalities such as transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. PPM is characterized by high transprosthetic velocity and gradients, normal EOA, small indexed EOA, and normal leaflet morphology and mobility. Transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography are particularly helpful to assess prosthetic valve leaflet morphology and mobility, which is a cornerstone of the differential diagnosis between PPM and pathologic valve obstruction. Severe symptomatic PPM following AVR with a bioprosthetic valve may be treated by redo surgery or the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure with fracturing of the surgical valve stent.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Comparing Different Transcatheter Heart Valve Designs: An Ex Vivo Bench Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors assessed the effect of valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) followed by bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF), testing different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs in an ex vivo bench study.

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthetic valve fracture can be performed to improve residual transvalvular gradients following VIV TAVR.

METHODS

The authors evaluated VIV TAVR and BVF with the SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) and ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Massachusetts) THVs. A 20-mm and 23-mm S3 were deployed in a 19-mm and 21-mm Mitroflow (Sorin Group USA, Arvada, Colorado), respectively. A small ACURATE neo was deployed in both sizes of Mitroflow tested. VIV TAVR samples underwent multimodality imaging, and hydrodynamic evaluation before and after BVF.

RESULTS

A high implantation was required to enable full expansion of the upper crown of the ACURATE neo and allow optimal leaflet function. Marked underexpansion of the lower crown of the THV within the surgical valve was also observed. Before BVF, VIV TAVR in the 19-mm Mitroflow had high transvalvular gradients using either THV design (22.0 mm Hg S3, and 19.1 mm Hg ACURATE neo). After BVF, gradients improved and were similar for both THVs (14.2 mm Hg S3, and 13.8 mm Hg ACURATE neo). The effective orifice area increased with BVF from 1.2 to 1.6 cm² with the S3 and from 1.4 to 1.6 cm² with the ACURATE neo. Before BVF, VIV TAVR with the ACURATE neo in the 21-mm Mitroflow had lower gradients compared with S3 (11.3 mm Hg vs. 16 mm Hg). However, after BVF valve gradients were similar for both THVs (8.4 mm Hg ACURATE neo vs. 7.8 mm Hg S3). The effective orifice area increased from 1.5 to 2.1 cm² with the S3 and from 1.8 to 2.2 cm² with the ACURATE neo.

CONCLUSIONS

BVF performed after VIV TAVR results in improved residual gradients. Following BVF, residual gradients were similar irrespective of THV design. Use of a small ACURATE neo for VIV TAVR in small (≤21 mm) surgical valves may be associated with challenges in achieving optimum THV position and expansion. BVF could be considered in selected clinical cases.

Durability and Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Bioprostheses

Background:

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option when a surgical valve demonstrates deterioration and dysfunction. This study reports 3-year results following valve-in-valve with self-expanding TAVR.

Methods:

The CoreValve US Expanded Use Study is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm study that evaluates safety and effectiveness of TAVR in extreme risk patients with symptomatic failed surgical biologic aortic valves. Study end points include all-cause mortality, need for valve reintervention, hemodynamic changes over time, and quality of life through 3 years. Patients were stratified by presence of preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Results:

From March 2013 to May 2015, 226 patients deemed extreme risk (STS-PROM [Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality] 9.0±7%) had attempted valve-in-valve TAVR. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 47.2% of the cohort. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or major stroke was 28.6%, and 93% of patients were in New York Heart Association I or II heart failure. Valve performance was maintained over 3 years with low valve reintervention rates (4.4%), an improvement in effective orifice area over time and a 2.7% rate of severe structural valve deterioration. Preexisting severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with 3-year mortality but was associated with significantly less improvement in quality of life at 3-year follow-up ( P =0.01).

Conclusions:

Self-expanding TAVR in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at extreme risk for surgery was associated with durable hemodynamics and excellent clinical outcomes. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with mortality but did limit patient improvement in quality of life over 3-year follow-up.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01675440.

Valvular Heart Disease in Patients ≥80 Years of Age

In the United States, the octogenarian population is projected to triple by 2050. With this aging population, the prevalence of valvular heart disease (VHD) is on the rise. The etiology, approach to treatment, and expected outcomes of VHD are different in the elderly compared with younger patients. Both stenotic and regurgitant lesions are associated with unfavorable outcomes if left untreated. Surgical mortality remains high due to multiple co-morbidities, and long-term survival benefit is dependent on many variables including valvular pathology. Quality of life is an important consideration in treatment decisions in this age group. Increasingly, octogenarian patients are receiving transcatheter therapies, with transcatheter aortic valve replacement having the greatest momentum. Numerous transcatheter devices for management of other valve lesions are currently in early clinical trials. This review will describe the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and therapeutic options for VHD in the oldest old, with a focus on transcatheter technologies.

Hemodynamic Performances and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Versus Native Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) emerged has a less invasive treatment than surgery for patients with degenerated bioprosthesis. However, few data are currently available regarding results of ViV versus TAVI in native aortic valve. We aimed to compare hemodynamic performances and 1-year outcomes between patients who underwent ViV procedure and patients who underwent non-ViV TAVI. This bicentric study included all patients who underwent aortic ViV procedure for surgical bioprosthetic aortic failure between 2013 and 2017. All patients who underwent TAVI were included in the analysis during the same period. ViV and non-ViV patients were matched with 1:2 ratio according to size, type of TAVI device, age (±5 years), sex, and STS score. Primary end point was hemodynamic performance including mean aortic gradient and aortic regurgitation at 1-year follow-up. A total of 132 patients were included, 49 in the ViV group and 83 in the non-ViV group. Mean age was 82.8 ± 5.9 years, 55.3% were female. Mean STS score was 5.2% ± 3.1%. Self-expandable valves were implanted in 78.8% of patients. At 1-year follow-up, aortic mean gradient was significantly higher in ViV group (18.1 ± 9.4 mm Hg vs 11.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg; p < 0.0001) and 17 (38.6%) patients had a mean aortic gradient ≥20 mm Hg vs 6 (7.8%) in the non-ViV group (p = 0.0001). Aortic regurgitation > grade 2 were similar in both groups (p = 0.71). In the ViV group, new pacemaker implantation was less frequent (p = 0.01) and coronary occlusions occurred only in ViV group (n = 2 [4.1%]). At 1-year follow-up, 3 patients (2.3%) died from cardiac cause, 1 (2.1%) in the ViV group vs 2 (2.4%) in the non-ViV group (p = 0.9). There was no stroke. In conclusion, compared with TAVI in native aortic stenosis, ViV appears as a safe and feasible strategy in patients with impaired bioprosthesis. As 1-year hemodynamic performances seem better in native TAVI procedure, long-term follow-up should be assessed to determinate the impact of residual stenosis on outcomes and durability.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed surgical valves

Aortic valve-in-valve is a less invasive alternative to surgical redo in the treatment of failed bioprosthetic valves. While only inoperable patients underwent the procedure before, operators currently offer it to those at lower risk and worldwide experience is in the thousands. Early mortality has diminished in recent analyses and improvements in symptoms and quality of life have been documented. Main considerations with aortic valve-in-valve include elevated postprocedural gradients, coronary obstruction and leaflet thrombosis. Risk factors for each of these adverse events have been described at length. Aortic valve-in-valve offers a safe and effective option in the management of failed bioprosthetic valves.

Successful use of the loop snare technique for crossing a degenerated surgical valve with the Evolut-R system

We first report the case highlighting a loop snare wire technique may be a useful percutaneous treatment option when faced with difficulty crossing the Evolut-R system into a surgical valve due to interference between the two prostheses, especially in cases with a very horizontal aorta.

Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis: incidence, clinical presentation and long-term outcomes

Aims

To assess the incidence, management and long-term outcomes of transcatheter heart valve thrombosis (THVT).

Methods and results

Between August 2007 and February 2016, 1396 patients were included in the Bern TAVI Registry and prospectively followed-up through echocardiographic and clinical evaluation. THVT was suspected in case of: (i) a mean transvalvular pressure gradient greater than 20 mmHg at transthoracic echocardiography, or (ii) an increase of more than 50% of the mean transvalvular pressure gradient compared with previous measurements or (iii) new symptoms or signs of heart failure with the presence of thrombus documented by transoesophageal echocardiography or multi-slice computed tomography. THVT occurred in 10 patients (0.71%) at variable time points after TAVI. Increased transvalvular pressure gradients were recorded in all patients and 7 out of 10 patients were symptomatic. Oral anticoagulant therapy (with vitamin K antagonists or non-Vitamin K antagonists) was initiated in all but two patients and resulted in normalization of transvalvular pressure gradients and amelioration of clinical status within 1 month. At long-term follow-up (between 10 and 25 months after valve thrombosis), echocardiographic findings were stable and no adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

THVT is rarely detected at routine clinical and echocardiographic evaluation after TAVI. Oral anticoagulation appears effective to normalize transvalvular gradients in the majority of cases with stable clinical and haemodynamic evolution during long-term follow-up.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated surgical bioprostheses

Transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) procedures are less invasive than re-do open heart surgery, and have proven relatively safe and effective. In large multicentre registries morbidity and mortality risks are generally lower than with surgery, and improvement in quality of life can be profound. Outcomes continue to improve with advances in transcatheter heart valve (THV) technology, techniques, and expertise. However specific concerns remain; including residual stenosis, coronary obstruction, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and thrombosis. The unknown durability is a concern in patients with the potential for longevity. Transcatheter VIV procedures will likely increasingly be favoured over reoperation when bioprosthetic heart valves fail, particularly when surgical risks are high.

Outcomes of Self-Expanding vs. Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Degenerated Aortic Surgical Bioprostheses - A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) replacement within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves is a feasible therapeutic option. However, data comparing the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of VIV replacement with supra-annular self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outcomes of 40 and 95 patients treated with supra-annular self-expanding and balloon-expandable THV, respectively, were compared after propensity score matching, which yielded 37 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Hemodynamic and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Postprocedural mean gradient was significantly lower in the self-expanding THV group than in the balloon-expandable THV group (12.1±6.1 mmHg vs. 19.0±7.3 mmHg, P<0.001). The incidence of at least mild postprocedural aortic regurgitation (AR) was comparable between the self-expanding and balloon-expandable THV groups (21.6% vs. 10.8%, P=0.39). In the self-expanding THV group, the new-generation THV showed a trend towards a lower incidence of at least mild AR compared with the early-generation THV (12.5% vs. 38.5%, P=0.07). A similar trend was observed in the balloon-expandable THV group (4.2% vs. 23.1%, P=0.08). There was no significant difference between the self-expanding and balloon-expandable THV groups in the cumulative 2-year all-cause mortality rates (22.4% vs. 43.4%, log-rank P=0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The supra-annular self-expanding THV was associated with a lower postprocedural mean gradient compared with balloon-expandable THV in patients undergoing aortic VIV replacement.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedure in Patients with Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Deterioration

Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard procedure to treat patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency. Bioprosthetic valves are used for surgical aortic valve replacement with a much greater prevalence than mechanical valves. However, bioprosthetic valves may fail over time because of structural valve deterioration; this often requires intervention due to severe bioprosthetic valve stenosis or regurgitation or a combination of both. In select patients, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement is performed by implanting a transcatheter heart valve within a failing bioprosthetic valve. The transcatheter ViV operation is a less invasive procedure compared with reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement, but it has been associated with specific complications and requires extensive preoperative work-up and planning by the heart team. Data from experimental studies and analyses of results from clinical procedures have led to strategies to improve outcomes of these procedures. The type, size, and implant position of the transcatheter valve can be optimized for individual patients with knowledge of detailed dimensions of the surgical valve and radiographic and echocardiographic measurements of the patient's anatomy. Understanding the complexities of the ViV procedure can lead surgeons to make choices during the original surgical valve implantation that can make a future ViV operation more technically feasible years before it is required.

Haemodynamic outcomes following aortic valve-in-valve procedure

Background and objectives

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) has emerged as a valuable technique to treat failed surgical bioprostheses (BPs) in patients with high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Small BP size (≤21 mm), stenotic pattern of degeneration and pre-existing prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) have been associated with worse clinical outcomes after ViV. However, no study has evaluated the actual haemodynamic benefit associated with ViV. This study aims to compare haemodynamic status observed at post-ViV, pre-ViV and early after initial SAVR and to determine the factors associated with worse haemodynamic outcomes following ViV, including the rates of high residual gradient and ‘haemodynamic futility’.

Methods

Early post-SAVR, pre-ViV and post-ViV echocardiographic data of 79 consecutive patients who underwent aortic ViV at our institution were retrospectively analysed. The primary study endpoint was suboptimal valve haemodynamics (SVH) following ViV defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 as the presence of high residual aortic mean gradient (≥20 mm Hg) and/or at least moderate aortic regurgitation (AR). Haemodynamic futility of ViV was defined as <10 mm Hg decrease in mean aortic gradient and no improvement in AR compared with pre-ViV.

Results

SVH was found in 61% of patients (57% high residual gradient, 4% moderate AR) after ViV versus 24% early after SAVR. Pre-existing PPM and BP mode of failure by stenosis were independently associated with the primary endpoint (OR: 2.87; 95% CI 1.08 to 7.65; p=0.035 and OR: 3.02; 95% CI 1.08 to 8.42; p=0.035, respectively) and with the presence of high residual gradient (OR: 4.38; 95% CI 1.55 to 12.37; p=0.005 and OR: 5.37; 95% CI 1.77 to 16.30; p=0.003, respectively) following ViV. Criteria of ViV haemodynamic futility were met in 7.6% overall and more frequently in patients with pre-existing PPM and stenotic BP (18.5%) compared with other patients (2.0%). ViV restored haemodynamic function to early post-SAVR level in only 34% of patients.

Conclusion

Although ViV was associated with significant haemodynamic improvement compared with pre-ViV in >90% of patients, more than half harboured SVH outcome. Furthermore, only one-third of patients had a restoration of valve haemodynamic function to the early post-SAVR level. Pre-existing PPM and stenosis pattern of BP degeneration were the main factors associated with SVH and haemodynamic futility following ViV. These findings provide strong support for the prevention of PPM at the time of initial SAVR and careful preprocedural patient screening.

Recent updates in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved from a challenging intervention to a standardized, simple, and streamlined procedure with over 350,000 procedures performed in over 70 countries. It is now a novel alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with intermediate surgical risk and its indications have been expanded to cohorts with bicuspid aortic valves, low surgical risk, and younger age and fewer comorbidities. Attention should be paid to further reducing remaining complications, such as paravalvular aortic regurgitation, conduction abnormalities, cardiac tamponade, and stroke. The aim of this review is to provide an overview on the rapidly changing field of TAVI treatment and to explore past achievements, current issues, and future perspectives of this treatment modality.

Emergency Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Acute Stentless Bioprosthetic Aortic Insufficiency and Cardiogenic Shock

Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration may present as acute, severe aortic regurgitation and cardiogenic shock. Such patients may be unsuitable for emergency valve replacement surgery due to excessive risk of operative mortality but could be treatable with transfemoral valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). There is a paucity of data regarding the feasibility of valve-in-valve TAVI in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock due to acute aortic insufficiency from stentless bioprosthetic valve degeneration. We present one such case, highlighting the unique aspects of valve-in-valve TAVI for this challenging patient subset.

Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve

Objective

We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event.

Methods

A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls).

Results

Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta −0.023; 95% CI −0.032 to –0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta −0.11; 95% CI −0.161 to –0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta −0.01; 95% CI −0.013 to –0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta −0.064; 95% CI −0.095 to –0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44).

Conclusions

Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: where are we now?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was first used in clinical practice in 2002. Since 2002, there has been a rapid increase in TAVI activity in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. This has been supported by systematic randomized data comparing TAVI against the gold standard treatment for the last 50 years’ surgical aortic valve replacement. TAVI is now currently a recommended therapeutic intervention in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis patients who are deemed either high risk or inoperable. The indications for TAVI continue to expand. Within this review we will focus on the current guidelines for TAVI, the evidence for it, the complications of TAVI, postprocedure care, the technology available to clinicians now and finally the future perspectives for TAVI.

Concomitant transfemoral transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve replacement

The valve-in-valve (viv) procedure has been shown to be effective in treating patients with a degenerated bioprosthesis who are also considered high risk or inoperable for a reoperation. We describe a case of concomitant transfemoral transcatheter viv aortic and mitral valve replacements.