Equipment entrapment during redo-TAVR with successful BASILICA procedure

Contemporary issues and lifetime management in patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Latest clinical trials have indicated favorable outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, there are unanswered questions particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancy. While current evidence are limited to short duration of clinical follow-up, there are certain factors which may impair patients clinical outcomes and quality-of-life at long-term. Contemporary issues in the current TAVR era include prosthesis-patient mismatch, heart failure hospitalization, subclinical thrombosis, future coronary access, and valve durability. In this review, the authors review available evidence and discuss each remaining issues and theoretical treatment strategies in lifetime management of TAVR patients.

Risk of Coronary Obstruction During Redo-TAVR in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of coronary obstruction during redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within a previously implanted self-expanding valve in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) versus tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis.

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of BAV in TAVR patients is expected to increase as the indication expands; however, no study has investigated the risk of coronary obstruction for future redo-TAVR in these patients.

METHODS

Computed tomography (CT) simulation analysis was performed in 86 type 0 BAV, 70 type 1 BAV, and 132 TAV patients who underwent TAVR with 1 VenusA-Valve (Venus Medtech) between January 2014 and December 2019.

RESULTS

CT-identified risk of coronary obstruction during redo-TAVR was observed in 36.1% of patients for the left coronary ostium (LCO) and 27.8% of patients for the right coronary ostium (RCO); however, the incidences were significantly lower in the type 0 BAV group than in the type 1 BAV or TAV group (for LCO: OR: 1.00 [reference] vs OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.24-5.01 vs OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.40-4.81; for RCO: OR: 1.00 [reference] vs OR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.02-4.48 vs OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.02-3.80). The leaflet laceration technique may be unfeasible to improve coronary flow in 61.5% of the threatened LCOs and 58.8% of the threatened RCOs during redo-TAVR. The percentages were significantly or numerically lower in the type 0 BAV group than other groups (for LCO: 26.3% vs 62.1% vs 73.2%; P overall = 0.001; for RCO: 43.8% vs 65.2% vs 61.0%; P overall = 0.374).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in anatomical features may impact the feasibility of future redo-TAVR. Type 0 BAV anatomy was associated with the lower incidence of CT-identified risk of coronary obstruction during redo-TAVR, and the leaflet laceration technique may be more feasible to ensure coronary flow in this population.