Treatment of Small Surgical Valves

The Use of BASILICA Technique to Prevent Coronary Obstruction in a TAVI-TAVI Procedure

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to manage structural bioprosthetic valve deterioration has been successful in mitigating the risk of a redo cardiac surgery. However, TAVI-in-TAVI is a complex intervention, potentially associated with feared complications such as coronary artery obstruction. Coronary obstruction risk is especially high when the previously implanted prosthesis had supra-annular leaflets and/or the distance between the prosthesis and the coronary ostia is short. The BASILICA technique (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) was developed to prevent coronary obstruction during native or valve-in-valve interventions but has now also been considered for TAVI-in-TAVI interventions. Despite its utility, the technique requires a not so widely available toolbox. Herein, we discuss the TAVI-in-TAVI BASILICA technique and how to perform it using more widely available tools, which could spread its use.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: a practical guide

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) is currently indicated for the treatment of failed surgical tissue valves in patients determined to be at high surgical risk for re-operative surgical valve replacement. VIV TAVR, however, often results in suboptimal expansion of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and can result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), particularly in small surgical valves. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) can facilitate VIV TAVR by optimally expanding the THV and reducing the residual transvalvular gradient by utilizing a high-pressure inflation with a non-compliant balloon to either fracture or stretch the surgical valve ring, respectively. This article, along with the supplemental video, will provide patient selection, procedural planning and technical insights for performing BVF and BVR.

Early and Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Degeneration: Two Faces of the Same Medal

OBJECTIVE

To compare early and midterm outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

DESIGN

Patients who underwent ViV-TAVI and re-SAVR for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration between January 2010 and October 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Mean follow-up was 3.0 years.

SETTING

In-hospital, early, and mid-term outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-eight patients were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-one patients (37.3%) had ViV-TAVI, and 57 patients (62.7%) had re-SAVR.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the ViV-TAVI group, patients were older (79.1 ± 7.4 v 67.2 ± 14.1, p < 0.01). The total operative time, intubation time, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, inotropes infusion, intubation >24 hours, total amount of chest tube losses, red blood cell transfusions, plasma transfusions, and reoperation for bleeding were significantly higher in the re-SAVR cohort (p < 0.01). There was no difference regarding in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (ViV-TAVI = 3.2% v re-SAVR = 8.8%, p = 0.27), patient-prosthesis mismatch (ViV-TAVI = 12 patients [mean 0.53 ± 0.07] and re-SAVR = ten patients [mean 0.56 ± 0.08], p = 0.4), stroke (ViV-TAVI = 3.2% v re-SAVR = 7%, p = 0.43), acute kidney injury (ViV-TAVI = 9.7% v re-SAVR = 15.8%, p = 0.1), and all-cause infections (ViV-TAVI = 0% v re-SAVR = 8.8%, p = 0.02), between the two groups. In-hospital mortality was 0% and 7% for ViV-TAVI and re-SAVR, respectively (p = 0.08). At three-years' follow-up, the incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the re-SAVR group (ViV-TAVI = 0 v re-SAVR = 13.4%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in reintervention (ViV-TAVI = 3.8% v re-SAVR = 0%, p = 0.32) and survival (ViV-TAVI = 83.9% v re-SAVR = 93%, p = 0.10) between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV-TAVI is a safe, feasible, and reliable procedure.

"TAVI: Valve in valve. A new field for structuralists? Literature review"

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) led to the foundation of the subspecialty of structural heart interventions and created an emerging area of clinical and technical issues. Soon after TAVI introduction into clinical practice, boundaries were expanded with utilization of valve-in-valve (V-i-V) techniques. V-i-V comprised a diverse subset of patients including TAVI within TAVI, TAVI within a degenerated surgically implanted bioprosthesis, or even TAVI-in-TAVI-in-surgical bioprosthesis. In the present review, we summarize the available literature and present initial experience on the field in Greece.

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.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/EACTS/HVS/SCA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate use criteria for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis

The American College of Cardiology collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data and expert opinion in the field of AS. The '2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines' [1] and its 2017 focused update paper [2] were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The Writing Group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent Rating Panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as 'Rarely Appropriate', 4-6 as 'May Be Appropriate' and 7-9 as 'Appropriate'. After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the Rating Panel determined that either surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement is appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement are less clear, including situations in which one form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/EACTS/HVS/SCA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

The American College of Cardiology collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of AS. The 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines(1) and its 2017 focused update paper (2) were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The writing group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent rating panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4-6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7-9 as "Appropriate." After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the rating panel determined that either SAVR or TAVR is Appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for SAVR or TAVR are less clear, including situations in which 1 form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice.

In vitro evaluation of implantation depth in valve-in-valve using different transcatheter heart valves

AIMS

Transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) offers an alternative therapy for high-risk patients. Elevated post-procedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to assess the relationship between depth of implantation and haemodynamics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Commercially available THVs used for ViV were included in the analysis (CoreValve Evolut, SAPIEN XT and the Portico valve). THVs were implanted in small surgical valves (label size 19 mm) to simulate boundary conditions. Custom-mounted pulse duplicators registered relevant haemodynamic parameters. Twenty-eight experiments were performed (13 CVE, 5 SXT and 10 Portico). Ranges of depth of implantation were: CVE: -1.2 mm to 15.7 mm; SXT: -2.2 mm to 7.5 mm; Portico: 1.4 mm to 12.1 mm. Polynomial regression established a relationship between depth of implantation and valvular mean gradients (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.01; Portico: p=0.002), as well as with EOA (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.02; Portico valve: p=0.003). In addition, leaflet coaptation was better in the high implantation experiments for all valves.

CONCLUSIONS

The current comprehensive bench testing assessment demonstrates the importance of high device position for the attainment of optimal haemodynamics during aortic ViV procedures.

Effect of transcatheter aortic valve size and position on valve-in-valve hemodynamics: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter heart valve implantation in failed aortic bioprostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]) is an increasingly used therapeutic option for high-risk patients. However, high postprocedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to evaluate Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R ViV hemodynamics in relation to the degree of device oversizing and depth of implantation.

METHODS

Evolut R devices of 23 and 26 mm were implanted within 21-, 23-, and 25-mm Hancock II bioprostheses. Small and gradual changes in implantation depth were attempted. Hemodynamic testing was performed in a pulse duplicator under ISO-5840 standard.

RESULTS

A total of 47 bench-testing experiments were performed. The mean gradient of the 26-mm Evolut R in 23- and 25-mm Hancock II was lower than 23-mm Evolut R (P < .001). However, the mean gradient of 26-mm Evolut R in 21-mm Hancock II bioprostheses R (ranging from 21.30 ± 0.23 to 24.30 ± 0.22 mm Hg) was worse than 23-mm Evolut R (ranging from 15.94 ± 0.18 to 20.35 ± 0.16 mm Hg, P < .001). Furthermore, our results suggest that supra-annular implantation of 23-mm and 26-mm Evolut R devices within the bioprostheses can lead to lower gradient and improved leaflet coaptation. Regardless of implantation depth, superior transvalvular gradient is expected with 26-mm Evolut R than 23-mm Evolut R in a nonstenotic Hancock II with a true internal diameter > 17.5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The current comprehensive bench-testing assessment demonstrates the importance of both transcatheter heart valve size and device position for the attainment of optimal hemodynamics during ViV procedures. Additional in vitro testing may be required to develop hemodynamics-based guidelines for device sizing in ViV procedures in degenerated surgical bioprostheses.

On the Mechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) represent the latest advances in prosthetic heart valve technology. TAVs are truly transformational as they bring the benefit of heart valve replacement to patients that would otherwise not be operated on. Nevertheless, like any new device technology, the high expectations are dampened with growing concerns arising from frequent complications that develop in patients, indicating that the technology is far from being mature. Some of the most common complications that plague current TAV devices include malpositioning, crimp-induced leaflet damage, paravalvular leak, thrombosis, conduction abnormalities and prosthesis-patient mismatch. In this article, we provide an in-depth review of the current state-of-the-art pertaining the mechanics of TAVs while highlighting various studies guiding clinicians, regulatory agencies, and next-generation device designers.

The transcatheter valve technology pipeline for treatment of adult valvular heart disease

The transcatheter valve technology pipeline has started as simple balloon valvuloplasty for the treatment of stenotic heart valves and evolved since the year 2000 to either repair or replace heart valves percutaneously with multiple devices. In this review, the present technology and its application are illuminated and a glimpse into the near future is dared from a physician's perspective.

Computer-Assisted Transcatheter Heart Valve Implantation in Valve-in-Valve Procedures

Objective

Valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly being considered as an alternative to redo surgery for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves in patients with excessive reoperative risk. The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of computer guidance in transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation during ViV procedures.

Methods

Preprocedural electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography–scan images were processed using semiautomatic segmentation of the degenerated bioprosthesis’ radiopaque landmarks and of the ascending aorta. Virtual three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions were created. A virtual plane was subsequently added to the 3D reconstructions, indicating the optimal landing plane of the THV inside the tissue valve. Within a hybrid operating theater, a 3D/2D registration was used to superimpose the 3D reconstructions, while dynamic tracking was allowed to maintain the superimposition onto the fluoroscopic images. The THV was afterward implanted according to the optimal landing plane. Projection of the ascending aorta and the coronary arteries was used to assess the risk of coronary ostia obstruction.

Results

Between January 2014 and October 2014, nine patients underwent aortic ViV procedures in our institution. Among those nine patients, five procedures were retrospectively evaluated as a validation step using the proposed method. The mean (SD) superimposition error was 1.1 (0.75) mm. Subsequently, two live cases were prospectively carried out using our approach, successfully implanting the THV inside the degenerated tissue valve.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of a computer-guided implantation of THV in ViV procedures. Moreover, it suggests that augmented reality may increase the reliability of THV implantation inside degenerated bioprostheses through better reproducibility.