TAVI with the self-expandable 29 mm core valve prosthesis in a patient with a metallic mitral valve

Combined transcatheter aortic valve and tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation in a patient with a mitral mechanical prosthesis

Despite progressively uncommon in Western countries, rheumatic heart disease still portrays a significant global burden. In elderly or high-surgical risk patients, plurivalvular disease may require a complex percutaneous approach. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with previous monoleaflet mitral prosthesis is challenging due to interference between the aortic valve and the rigid mitral mechanical prosthesis "ring." Prior cases report the use of CoreValve or Edwards Sapien aortic valves in patients with adequate mitro-aortic distance. Performing a second major procedure, such as tricuspid valve-in-valve (TVIV), sequentially during a single percutaneous intervention, increases treatment complexity. An 83-year-old woman with rheumatic heart disease, with previous implantation of a Bjork-Shiley monoleaflet mitral prosthesis, and Carpentier-Edwards 29 tricuspid bioprosthesis presented with decompensated heart failure due to severe aortic stenosis and tricuspid bioprosthesis stenosis. After HeartTeam discussion, the patient was deemed as inoperable due to a prohibitive surgical risk. As an alternative, a TAVI (Navitor FlexNav) and a transcatheter TVIV replacement (Edwards Sapiens 3 Ultra) were discussed and proposed, with both techniques being performed sequentially in a single procedure. TAVI in a patient with a previous monoleaflet mitral mechanical prosthesis and TVIV may be a feasible approach in inoperable patients with plurivalvular disease.

Previously implanted mitral surgical prosthesis in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Procedural outcome and morphologic assessment using multidetector computed tomography

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the presence of a preexisting mitral prosthesis is challenging and its influence on the morphology of mitral prosthesis and the positioning of transcatheter heart valve (THV) is unknown. We assessed the feasibility of TAVI for patients with preexisting mitral prostheses, its influence on mitral prosthesis morphology, and the positional interaction between a newly implanted THV and mitral prosthesis using serial multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Thirty-one patients with preexisting mitral prosthesis undergoing TAVI were included. MDCT was performed before and after TAVI. Thirty patients successfully underwent TAVI without interference from preexisting mitral prosthesis. Although opening disturbance of the mechanical mitral prosthesis by the THV edge was observed in 1 patient, the patient was managed conservatively. No THV embolization occurred. THV shift during deployment occurred in 9 patients and was predicted by a larger aortic annulus area (odds ratio: 1.24 per 10 mm², 1.03–1.49, p = 0.02), possibly because of large THVs. The mitral mean pressure gradient was slightly higher after TAVI (3.7 vs. 4.3 mmHg, p = 0.002), whereas the mitral regurgitation grade was similar. MDCT showed that the size of the mitral prosthesis housing was unchanged after TAVI. The median distance between the mitral prosthesis and THV was 2.6 mm. The postprocedural angle between the mitral prosthesis and THV was larger than the preprocedural angle between the mitral prosthesis and the left ventricular outflow tract (64° vs. 61°, p = 0.03). Thus, TAVI is feasible in the case of preexisting mitral prosthesis. Serial MDCT demonstrated favorable THV positioning and unchanged mitral prosthesis morphology after TAVI.

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the presence of a mitral prosthesis

PURPOSE

In the current case series, we present our experience with the self-expanding CoreValve or Evolut R (Medtronic Inc.) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis and concomitant mitral valve prosthesis.

METHODS

Twelve patients with previous mitral valve prosthesis underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis and/or aortic valve regurgitation. All patients underwent evaluation with an echocardiogram, computed tomography and coronary angiogram. After the index intervention and before discharge all patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography. All outcomes were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.

RESULTS

Eleven patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis and one patient for severe aortic valve regurgitation. There was immediate improvement of patients' hemodynamic status; no cases of procedural death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or urgent cardiac surgery occurred. There was no 30-day mortality and all patients improved, with 91.6% in functional New York Heart Association class I-II.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates that in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis or regurgitation and mitral valve prosthesis, the implantation of a self-expanding aortic valve via the transfemoral route is safe and feasible, with maintained long-term results.

Transapical aortic valve implantation in patients with pre-existing mitral valve prostheses: a case report

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has proven to be a valid option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high perioperative risk, particularly in patients with previous cardiac surgery. Several patients with previous mitral valve surgery were reported to have been successfully treated with TAVI.

Case presentation

Two patients, one with mechanical and one with biological mitral valve prosthesis, presented with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. After discussion among our multidisciplinary heart team transapical approach and a JenaValve™ prosthesis was used for TAVI. Main reasons were to decrease the perioperative risk, avoid a re-opening of the chest via median sternotomy, and discuss the possible superiority of the JenaValve™ device due to its design. The patients were successfully treated and discharged on the 11th and 14th post-operative day, respectively. Echocardiographic follow up before discharge and up to 2.8 years post-operatively showed excellent results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, TAVI in patients with preexisting mitral prostheses-mechanical or biological-is feasible, safe, and effective and offers a valid alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement in this particular re-operation scenario. The JenaValve™ device does not interact with the mitral prosthesis and offers therefore due to its unique design a potential advantage.