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

Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI): An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a feasible alternative to reoperative surgery in patients with degenerated surgical bio-prosthesis. However, data regarding the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI remain inconclusive. This meta-analysis compares the procedural and clinical outcomes of self-expanding (SE) vs. balloon-expandable (BE) valves in ViV-TAVI. MEDLINE and Scopus were queried to identify studies reporting outcomes of ViV-TAVI by SE/BE valve type or comparing outcomes between SE or BE valves for ViV-TAVI. The primary outcome was incidence of all-cause mortality at 30 days. Data were presented as incidence of outcomes, analyzed via random effects model using inverse variance method with 95 % confidence intervals. Further incidence rates of primary and secondary outcomes were presented as subgroups of BE and SE, with comparison in incidence rates between the subgroups made using p-interaction of proportions. 27 studies with 13,182 patients (SE: 7346; BE: 5836) were included. There were no significant differences between the BE vs. SE valves in 30-day mortality (BE 4 % vs. SE 3 %, p = 0.44), 1-year mortality (BE 12 % vs. SE 10 %, p = 0.60), and moderate-to-severe AR at 1 year (BE 1 % vs. SE 3 %, p = 0.36). However, patients with SE valves had higher rates of new permanent pacemaker insertion (BE 4 % vs. SE 9 %, p = 0.0019). There were no significant differences in the incidence of 30-day safety outcomes, including stroke, AKI, coronary obstruction, major bleeding, and major vascular complications. Both BE and SE valve types showed comparable mortality and safety outcomes in ViV-TAVI, except pacemaker insertion, which was higher in SE compared with BE valves.

What Are SAVR Indications in the TAVI Era?

While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has traditionally been regarded as the gold standard for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a compelling less invasive alternative for patients with severe AS across the entire surgical risk spectrum. Despite TAVI's increasing utilization and promising outcomes, SAVR continues to be an essential treatment modality for certain patient populations, including individuals with complex aortic anatomies unsuitable for TAVI, patients presenting with significant aortic regurgitation, individuals requiring concomitant surgical procedures, and cases involving infective endocarditis. Furthermore, concerns regarding the long-term durability and complication profile of transcatheter valves underscore the importance of individualized patient assessment, especially for younger patients requiring optimal lifetime management strategies. This review examines the evolving role of SAVR amidst the growing adoption of TAVI and highlights key considerations for selecting the most appropriate treatment strategy for patients with aortic valve disease, incorporating insights from recent advancements in transcatheter technologies and the latest clinical trial evidence.

First Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation With Myval Octacor Into a Failed Biological Prosthetic Aortic Valve in Serbia

The natural progression of bioprosthetic valve degeneration over time requires further interventions for those experiencing symptomatic prosthesis dysfunction. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) emerges as a promising therapeutic option to alleviate symptoms in such patients. The valve-in-valve (ViV) technique eliminates the necessity for repetitive open-heart surgical procedures, offering particular advantages for individuals with higher surgical risks. In this report, we describe the case of a 78-year-old female patient presenting with severe symptomatic aortic restenosis of a biological aortic valve implanted 5 years prior. Given the patient's high surgical risk, a transcatheter ViV implantation was chosen as the treatment approach. Utilizing a balloon-expandable valve, the intervention resulted in the successful implantation of a functional TAVR, resulting in symptom relief and enabling a fast discharge from the hospital.

Valve type and post-dilation impact on transprosthetic gradients in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedure

Aims

Valve-in-Valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is an appealing treatment option for patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves. However, higher post-procedural transprosthetic gradients are more common after ViV-TAVR than after TAVR for native aortic valve stenosis. We sought to evaluate the impact of type of implanted valve and balloon post-dilation on echocardiographic results and mortality in ViV-TAVR patients.

Methods and results

One hundred and eleven consecutive patients were enrolled. A balloon-expandable valve, a self-expandable valve without balloon post-dilation, and a self-expandable valve with balloon post-dilation were performed in 35 (Group 1), 39 (Group 2), and 37 (Group 3) patients, respectively. All patients underwent comprehensive transthoracic echocardiography at baseline, discharge, and 6-12 months follow-up. Successful ViV-TAVR was performed in 110 patients (99%). Baseline transprosthetic gradients, left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure were similar among groups. All groups experienced a significant reduction in post-procedural gradients at discharge and during the 6-12 months follow-up compared with baseline. At discharge, the lowest mean gradient was observed in Group 3 (12 ± 7 mmHg) compared with both Group 1 (20 ± 9 mmHg) and Group 2 (17 ± 8 mmHg, P = 0.001). This result was confirmed at 6-12 months follow-up (P = 0.012). Similar 5-year all-cause mortality was observed among groups (34%, 36%, 14%, respectively, P = 0.056).

Conclusion

In patients with failed surgical aortic prosthesis, ViV-TAVR is an effective treatment option associated with sustained improved haemodynamics regardless of transcatheter valve type and use of balloon post-dilation. However, self-expandable valves with balloon post-dilation showed lower transprosthetic gradients.

A multimodal approach to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

The valve-in-valve transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation (VIV-TAVI) represents an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerated aortic bio-prostheses, and the occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after VIV-TAVI might affect its clinical efficacy. This study aimed to test a multimodal imaging approach to predict PPM risk during the TAVI planning phase and assess its clinical predictivity in VIV-TAVI procedures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing VIV-TAVI procedures at our Institution over 6 years were screened and those treated by self-expandable supra-annular valves were selected. The effective orifice area (EOA) was calculated with a hybrid Gorlin equation combining echocardiographic data with invasive hemodynamic assessment. Severe PPM was defined according to such original multimodality assessment as EOAi≤0.65 cm2/m2 (if BMI < 30 kg/m2) or < 0.55 cm2/m2 (if BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and valve-related re-hospitalization during the clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 40 VIV-TAVI was included in the analysis. According to the pre-specified multimodal imaging modality assessment, 18 patients (45.0 %) had severe PPM. Among all baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics, estimated glomerular filtration rate before VIV-TAVI (OR 0.872, 95%CI[0.765-0.994],p = 0.040), the echocardiographic pre-procedural ≥moderate AR (OR 0.023, 95%CI[0.001-0.964],p = 0.048), the MSCT-derived effective internal area (OR 0.958, 95%CI[0.919-0.999],p = 0.046) and the implantation depth (OR 2.050, 95%CI[1.028-4.086],p = 0.041) resulted as independent predictors of severe PPM at multivariable logistic analysis. At a mean follow-up of 630 days, patients with severe PPM showed a higher incidence of the primary endpoint (9.1%vs.44.4 %;p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In VIV-TAVI using self-expandable supra-annular valves, a multimodal imaging approach might improve clinical outcome predicting severe PPM occurrence.

The Heart Team during the Pandemic: A Case Report of Bio-Prosthesis Degeneration Treated with Valve in Valve Implantation

The pandemic changed the type of patients. The concept of "patient at the center" became concrete. The execution of simple consultancy was overcome to create effective collaboration and fruitful exchanges between specialists. The "Heart Team" model is on increasing affirmation. The TEAM-BASED approach in the cardiology field is successfully used in patients suffering from ischemic heart disease and valvulopathies for the choice of possible treatments. Degenerative type Sao is the most frequent valvulopathy among the valvulopathies in Western countries and its incidence is correlated with age. In high-risk patients, percutaneous valve replacement (transcatheter aortic valve implantation) is the most valid therapeutic option. The implantation of biological prostheses raises the problem of both degeneration and dysfunction of the prosthesis itself over time in subjects of advanced age and with comorbidities. In this scenario, valve-in-valve (VinV) is a valid therapeutic alternative in high-risk patients. A clinical case of aortic prosthetic degeneration, as an outcome of endocarditis, treated with VinV is presented. The therapeutic decision was made by an "Electronic Heart Team" which represents a further evolution of the treatment pathways and reduces the distance between the specialists in "Hub" Centers and the "Spoke" center.

Early outcomes of the Y-incision technique to enlarge the aortic annulus 3 to 4 valve sizes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel aortic annular enlargement technique.

METHODS

From August 2020 to February 2022, 50 consecutive cases of aortic valve replacement with Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and other combined cardiac procedures were performed primarily for severe aortic stenosis. Data were obtained through medical record review, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, and National Death Index data.

RESULTS

The median age was 65 (59, 71) years, 70% of patients were female, and 26% had previous cardiac surgery. Sixty-six percent patients had isolated aortic valve replacement. The preoperative mean gradient was 40 (30, 47) mm Hg, and the native aortic annular size was 21 (19, 23) mm. After aortic annular enlargement, the median prosthesis size was 27 (27, 29) with 54% of patients having a size 29 or the largest sized valve. The median increment of annulus enlargement was 3 (3, 4) valve sizes. 88% of patients received no blood transfusion. There were no major postoperative complications, including operative mortality, renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, mediastinitis, or reoperation for bleeding, except for 1 stroke. Three-month postoperative computed tomography aortogram showed the aortic root was enlarged from 27 (24, 30) to 40 (36, 41) mm without aortic pseudoaneurysm. The postoperative mean gradient was 7 (5, 8) mm Hg and valve area was 1.9 (1.7, 2.3) cm2 at 3 to 12 months. Mitral and tricuspid valve functions were significantly improved. Survival was 100% at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Y-incision aortic annular enlargement was safe and effective for upsizing the aortic annulus by 3 to 4 valve sizes.

Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]).

AIMS

We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.

Five-Year Follow-Up from the CoreValve Expanded Use Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Surgical Aortic Valve Study

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides an option for extreme-risk patients who underwent reoperation for a failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. Long-term data on patients who underwent TAVR within a failed surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) are limited. The CoreValve Expanded Use Study evaluated patients at extreme surgical risk who underwent TAV-in-SAV. Outcomes at 5 years were analyzed by SAV failure mode (stenosis, regurgitation, or combined). Echocardiographic outcomes are site-reported. TAV-in-SAV was attempted in 226 patients with a mean age of 76.7 ± 10.8 years; 63.3% were male, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score was 9.0 ± 6.7%, and 87.5% had a New York Heart Association classification III or IV symptoms. Most of the failed surgical bioprostheses were stented (81.9%), with an average implant duration of 10.2 ± 4.3 years. The 5-year all-cause mortality or major stroke rate was 47.2% in all patients; 54.4% in the stenosis, 37.6% in the regurgitation, and 38.0% in the combined groups (p = 0.046). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was higher in patients with versus without 30-day severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (51.7% vs 38.3%, p = 0.026). The overall aortic valve reintervention rate was 5.9%; highest in the regurgitation group (12.6%). The mean aortic valve gradient was 14.1 ± 9.8 mm Hg and effective orifice area was 1.57 ± 0.70 at 5 years. Few patients had >mild paravalvular regurgitation at 5 years (5.5% moderate, 0.0% severe). TAV-in-SAV with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR continues to represent a safe and lasting intermediate option for extreme-risk patients who have appropriate sizing of the preexisting failed surgical valve. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were stable through 5 years.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation to Treat Degenerated Aortic, Mitral and Tricuspid Bioprosthesis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now well established as the treatment of choice for patients with native aortic valve stenosis who are high or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Recent data has also supported the use of TAVI in patients at low surgical risk and also in anatomical subsets that were previously felt to be contra-indicated including bicuspid aortic valves and aortic regurgitation. With advancements and refinements in procedural techniques, the application of this technology has now been further expanded to include the management of degenerated bioprosthesis. After the demonstration of feasibility and safety in the management of degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves, mitral and tricuspid bioprosthetic valve treatment is now also well-established and provides an attractive alternative to performing redo surgery. In this review, we appraise the latest clinical evidence and highlight procedural considerations when utilising TAVI technology in the management of degenerated aortic, mitral or tricuspid prosthesis.

Comparison of a novel self-expanding transcatheter heart valve with two established devices for treatment of degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses

AIMS

This study was performed to compare haemodynamic properties of a novel transcatheter heart valve (THV) with two established valve technologies for treatment of failing surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves (SAV). The ALLEGRA THV has been recently described with a proven safety and performance profile.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study was designed as a retrospective, single-centre study investigating 112 patients (77.7 ± 7.1 years, 53.8% female, STS score 6.8 ± 5.8% and logEuroSCORE I 27.4 ± 16.1%) with failing SAV. Patients were treated with the ALLEGRA THV (NVT, n = 24), the CoreValve/EvolutR (MTD, n = 64) or the Edwards Sapien/Sapien XT/Sapien 3 (EDW, n = 24). Adverse events, haemodynamic outcomes and patient safety were analysed according to VARC-3 definitions. Overall procedural success was high (94.6%), even though 58.9% of the treated SAV were classified as small (true inner diameter < 21 mm). After treatment, the mean pressure gradient was significantly reduced (baseline: 33.7 ± 16.5 mmHg, discharge: 18.0 ± 7.1 mmHg), with a corresponding increase in effective orifice area (EOA). The complication rates did not differ in between groups. There was a trend to lower mean transvalvular gradients after implantation of self-expanding THV with supra-annular valve function, despite a higher frequency of smaller SAVs in the NVT and MTD group. Additionally, comparison between NVT and MTD revealed statistically lower transvalvular gradients (NVT 14.9 ± 5.0 mmHg, MTD 18.7 ± 7.5 mmHg, p = 0.0295) in a subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve (ViV) treatment of failing SAV with supra-annular design like the ALLEGRA THV resulted in favourable haemodynamic outcomes with similar low clinical event rates and may therefore be an interesting alternative for VIV TAVI.

Trends in surgical aortic valve replacement in pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement eras at a structural heart center

Background

The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has directly impacted the lifelong management of patients with aortic valve disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved TAVR for all surgical risk: prohibitive (2011), high (2012), intermediate (2016), and low (2019). Since then, TAVR volumes are increasing and surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) are decreasing. This study sought to evaluate trends in isolated SAVR in the pre- and post-TAVR eras.

Methods

From January 2000 to June 2020, 3,861 isolated SAVRs were performed at a single academic quaternary care institution which participated in the early trials of TAVR beginning in 2007. A formal structural heart center was established in 2012 when TAVR became commercially available. Patients were divided into the pre-TAVR era (2000-2011, n = 2,426) and post-TAVR era (2012-2020, n = 1,435). Data from the institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database was analyzed.

Results

The median age was 66 years, similar between groups. The post-TAVR group had a statistically higher rate of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart failure, more reoperative SAVR, and lower STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) (2.0% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.0001). There were more urgent/emergent/salvage SAVRs (38% vs. 24%) and fewer elective SAVRs (63% vs. 76%), (p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR group. More bioprosthetic valves were implanted in the post-TAVR group (85% vs. 74%, p < 0.0001). Larger aortic valves were implanted (25 vs. 23 mm, p < 0.0001) and more annular enlargements were performed (5.9% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR era. Postoperatively, the post-TAVR group had less blood product transfusion (49% vs. 58%, p < 0.0001), renal failure (1.4% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.0001), pneumonia (2.3% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), shorter lengths of stay, and lower in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.0007).

Conclusion

The approval of TAVR changed the landscape of aortic valve disease management. At a quaternary academic cardiac surgery center with a well-established structural heart program, patients undergoing isolated SAVR in the post-TAVR era had lower STS PROM, more implantation of bioprosthetic valves, utilization of larger valves, annular enlargement, and lower in-hospital mortality. Isolated SAVR continues to be performed in the TAVR era with excellent outcomes. SAVR remains an essential tool in the lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Hemodynamic and Mid-Term Outcomes for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Internally Stented Valves

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement is indicated in patients undergoing repeat intervention for degenerative aortic valve bioprostheses. Patients with internally stented valves (ie, Mitroflow and Trifecta) are at high risk for coronary artery obstruction during ViV procedures because of valve design, as the leaflets are mounted outside the valve stent.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement within internally stented valves (ViV-IS) vs other surgical valves (ViV-OS).

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic parameters, and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-IS were retrospectively collected and compared with those of patients who underwent ViV-OS.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients (65% men, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4.4% [IQR: 2.2%-8.4%]) were included. Seventy-one patients (28%) underwent ViV-IS, and 179 (72%) patients underwent ViV-OS. Patients who underwent ViV-OS had better periprocedural hemodynamic status compared with those who underwent ViV-IS (median mean gradient 6 [IQR: 2-13] vs 12 [IQR: 6-16]; P < 0.001). This was not significantly different when both groups were matched on the basis of age, sex, and valve internal diameter size (median mean gradient: 18 [IQR: 13-25] for ViV-OS vs 18 [IQR: 11-24] for ViV-IS; P = 0.36). Coronary protection for potential occlusion was performed more in ViV-IS vs ViV-OS pr (79% vs 6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Patients who underwent ViV-IS had a higher risk for coronary occlusion, requiring stent deployment, compared with those who underwent ViV-OS (54% vs 3%, respectively; P < 0.001. There was no difference in mortality at 3 years between the 2 groups (P = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent ViV-IS had a very high incidence of coronary compromise that can be safely and effectively treated. In the setting of a systematic coronary protection strategy, ViV-OS and ViV-IS provide similar mid-term outcome, and periprocedural hemodynamic status (following adjustment for age, sex, and true internal diameter).

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure

Background

In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR).

Methods

A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed.

Results

In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074).

Conclusion

VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

Valve-in-valve TAVI and risk of coronary obstruction: Validation of the VIVID classification

BACKGROUND

The Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry proposed a simplified classification to assess the risk of coronary obstruction during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) based on preprocedural multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). We investigated the validity of the VIVID classification in patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for degenerated bioprostheses.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for degenerated bioprostheses were prospectively included in this study. The risk of coronary obstruction among patients treated with stented valves was retrospectively evaluated based on anatomical assessment on pre-procedural MDCT.

RESULTS

Among a total of 137 patients that underwent ViV-TAVI between August 2007 and June 2021, 109 patients had stented, sutureless, or transcatheter degenerated bioprosthesis of which 96 (88%) had adequate MDCT data for risk assessment. High-risk anatomy for coronary obstruction (VIVID type IIB, IIIB, or IIIC) in either the left or right coronary artery was observed in 30 patients (31.3%). Of the 30 patients with high-risk anatomy, coronary protection using wire protection or BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction) was performed in 3 patients (10.0%). Three patients treated with stentless valves and one patient treated with a stented valve with externally mounted leaflets had coronary obstruction. None of the patients with high risk anatomy according to MDCT had coronary obstruction even without coronary protection.

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary obstruction occurred in none of the patients classified as high-risk patients according to the VIVID classification despite the absence of coronary protection. Refined tools are required to assess the risk of coronary obstruction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. NCT01368250.

BAlloon expandable vs. SElf expanding transcatheter vaLve for degenerated bioprosthesIs: design and rationale of the BASELINE trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve bioprostheses may degenerate over time and require redo intervention. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive alternative to redo surgery. The BAlloon Expandable vs. SElf Expanding Transcatheter VaLve for Degenerated BioprosthesIs (BASELINE) trial was designed to compare the performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN-3 Ultra and the self-expanding EVOLUT PRO+ valve systems in symptomatic patients with a failing surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

The BASELINE trial is an investigator-initiated, non-funded, prospective, randomized, open-label, superiority trial enrolling a total of 440 patients in up to 50 sites in 12 countries in Europe and North-America. The primary endpoint is device success at 30-days defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 Criteria as the composite of technical success, freedom from mortality, freedom for surgery or intervention related to the device or to a major vascular or access-related or cardiac structural complication with an intended performance of the valve (mean gradient <20 mmHg and less than moderate aortic regurgitation). The co-primary endpoint at 1 year is defined as the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems. Independent Core Laboratories will conduct uniform analyses of echocardiography (pre-, post-, 1-year post-procedure), multi-sliced computed tomography (pre-, and if available post-procedure) and cine-fluoroscopy studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The BASELINE trial is a head-to-head comparative trial investigating the 2 most used contemporary transcatheter heart valves for the treatment of a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04843072).

Long-term outcomes of aortic root operations in the United States among Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

The best method of aortic root repair in older patients remains unknown given a lack of comparative effectiveness of long-term outcomes data. The objective of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of different surgical approaches for aortic root repair in Medicare patients using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-linked data.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed by querying the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database for patients aged 65 years or more who underwent elective aortic root repair with or without aortic valve replacement. Primary long-term end points were mortality, any stroke, and aortic valve reintervention. Short-term outcomes and long-term survival were compared among each root repair strategy. Additional risk factors for mortality after aortic root repair were assessed with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 4173 patients aged 65 years or more underwent elective aortic root repair. Patients were stratified by operative strategy: mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall, or valve-sparing root replacement. Mean follow-up was 5.0 (±4.6) years. Relative to mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; confidence interval, 0.66-0.97) and stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; confidence interval, 0.59-0.84) were associated with better long-term survival. In addition, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; confidence interval, 0.47-0.80) and valve-sparing root replacement (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.51; confidence interval, 0.29-0.90) were associated with lower long-term risk of stroke. Aortic valve reintervention risk was 2-fold higher after valve-sparing root replacement compared with other operative strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Medicare population, there was poorer late survival and greater late stroke risk for patients undergoing mechanical Bentall and a higher rate of reintervention for valve-sparing root replacement. Bioprosthetic Bentall may be the procedure of choice in older patients undergoing aortic root repair, particularly in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Multicenter experience with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with primary, native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bioprosthetic Valve Failure: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3 Aortic Valve-in-Valve Study

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is safe and effective for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) but has not been studied in low- and intermediate-risk patients. One year outcomes of the PARTNER 3 Aortic Valve-in-valve (AViV) Study were evaluated.

Methods

This prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled 100 patients from 29 sites with surgical BVF. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year. The key secondary outcomes included mean gradient, functional capacity, and rehospitalization (valve-related, procedure-related, or heart failure related).

Results

A total of 97 patients underwent AViV with a balloon-expandable valve from 2017 to 2019. Patients were 79.4% male with a mean age of 67.1 years and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 2.9%. The primary endpoint occurred in 2 patients (2.1%) who had strokes; there was no mortality at 1 year. Five patients (5.2%) had valve thrombosis events, and 9 patients (9.3%) had rehospitalizations, including 2 (2.1%) for strokes, 1 (1.0%) for heart failure, and 6 (6.2%) for aortic valve reinterventions (3 explants, 3 balloon dilations, and 1 percutaneous paravalvular regurgitation closure). From baseline to 1 year, New York Heart Association class III/IV decreased from 43.3% to 4.5%, mean gradient from 39.1 ± 18.2 mm Hg to 19.7 ± 7.6 mm Hg, and ≥moderate aortic regurgitation from 41.1% to 1.1%.

Conclusions

AViV with a balloon-expandable valve improved hemodynamic and functional status at 1 year and can provide an additional therapeutic option in selected low- or intermediate-risk patients with surgical BVF, although longer term follow-up is necessary.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve Implantations Using Inverted J-Valve

Background

As bioprosthetic valves are being widely used, the incidence of structural valve deterioration increases, as well as the need for reoperation. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantations are being increasingly adopted as an alternative to redo-surgical mitral replacement for patients with high surgical risks. This study reports a series of transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantations using inverted J-valves.

Methods

From April 2019 to September 2021, 17 symptomatic high-risk patients with mitral bioprosthetic valve dysfunction underwent transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantations using inverted J-valves at our institution.

Results

The median age was 70 years, with 76.5% being female. The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM) was 17.2% (8.7–82.24%). All patients had successful transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantations except for one intraoperative death due to left ventricle rupture. Four patients underwent simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation, two of which had valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation. There was no major complication except one case of bleeding. Thirty-day mortality was 11.8% (2/17), and 90-days mortality was 23.5% (4/17). Percentages of patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV symptoms decreased from 100 (17/17) to 20% (3/15) at 30-days. Median mitral inflow velocity was 1.95 mm/s at 30 days, compared to 2.7 mm/s at baseline. Median mitral valve effective orifice area increases from 1.5 mm at baseline to 1.85 mm at 30 days.

Conclusion

Transcatheter transapical valve-in-valve implantations with J-valve can be a plausible solution to failed mitral bioprosthesis with acceptable results for high-risk patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis: A systematic review

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve in valve (Aviv) replacement has been shown to be an effective therapeutic option in patients with failed aortic bioprosthetic valves. This review intended to evaluate contemporary 1-year outcomes of Aviv in recent studies.

Methods:

A systematic review on outcomes of Aviv was performed using the best available evidence from studies obtained using a MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS search. Endpoints of interest were survival, coronary artery obstruction, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), stroke, pacemaker implantation, and structural valve deterioration.

Results:

A total of 3339 patients from 23 studies were included. Mean age was 68–80 years, 20%–50% were female, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.7 to 31.1. Thirty-day all-cause mortality ranged from 2% to 8%, and 1-year all-cause mortality ranged from 8% to 33%. Coronary artery obstruction risk after Aviv ranged from 0.6% to 4%. One-year stroke ranged from 2% to 8%. Moderate-severe PPM occurred in 11%–58%, and pacemaker rate at 1 year ranged from 5% to 12%.

Conclusion:

Transcatheter aortic ViV has emerged as an effective therapeutic option to treat patients with failed bioprostheses. The acceptable complication rate and favorable 1-year outcomes make Aviv an appropriate alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

Transcatheter solutions for transcatheter aortic valve replacement dysfunction: is redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement a durable option?

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) expands into a younger and lower risk cohort of patients, many important clinical questions are raised, including the one of overall valve durability. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) is a complex clinical issue, of which structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a subcategory. Similar to surgical bioprosthesis, transcatheter heart valves (THVs) can fail over the years however, data on long-term THVs durability is lacking, especially in the lower risk cohort. Surgical explant with open aortic surgery or a second THV, described as redo-TAVR, are feasible options when the first THV fails. However long-term data in these patients is even more limited. Important clinical considerations such as the mechanism(s) of THV dysfunction, the type and timing of the second procedure must be carefully considered. There are also inherently important clinical concerns regarding redo-TAVR, such as coronary access and higher post procedure gradients. In the present keynote lecture, we review the diagnosis of THV dysfunction and transcatheter options available when SVD occurs.

Hemodynamic outcomes after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a single-center experience

Background

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as a safe, effective alternative to redo aortic valve surgery in high-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. However, ViV-TAVR has been associated high postprocedural valvular gradients, compared with TAVR for native-valve aortic stenosis.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for a degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2019 at our center. The primary outcome was postprocedural mean aortic valve gradient. Outcomes were compared across surgical valve type (stented versus stentless), surgical valve internal diameter (≤19 versus >19 mm), and transcatheter aortic valve type (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable).

Results

Overall, 89 patients underwent ViV-TAVR. Mean age was 69.0±12.6 years, 61% were male, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 5.4 [interquartile range, 3.2-8.5]. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenotic (58% of patients), regurgitant (24%), or mixed (18%). The surgical valve was stented in 75% of patients and stentless in 25%. The surgical valve's internal diameter was ≤19 mm in 45% of cases. A balloon-expandable transcatheter valve was used in 53% of procedures. Baseline aortic valve area and mean gradients were 0.87±0.31 cm² and 36±18 mmHg, respectively. These improved after ViV-TAVR to 1.38±0.55 cm² and 18±11 mmHg at a median outpatient follow-up of 331 [67-394] days. Higher postprocedural mean gradients were associated with surgical valves having an internal diameter ≤19 mm (24±13 versus 16±8, P=0.002) and with stented surgical valves (22±11 versus 12±6, P<0.001).

Conclusions

ViV-TAVR is an effective option for treating degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses, with acceptable hemodynamic outcomes. Small surgical valves and stented surgical valves are associated with higher postprocedural gradients.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic and mitral bioprosthesis: Current state and future perspectives

The use of bioprosthetic valves for treating patients with severe valve disease has increased over the last 2 decades, and, as a consequence, a growing number of patients with failing surgical bioprosthesis is expected in the near future. In this setting, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic/mitral valve replacement (TAVR and TMVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery. Despite the increasing experience in ViV procedures, the development of these techniques faces several specific challenges, mainly related to the unique anatomical and physiological characteristics presented in ViV-TAVR/TMVR. Subsequently, various approaches have been proposed to overcome ViV-related complications and pitfalls. A growing body of evidence is currently available concerning early- and long-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR/TMVR. These data should be comprehensively evaluated by the Heart Team in the decision-making process involving patients with failing surgical bioprostheses. In this review, we aimed to delineate the technical challenges and risks associated with ViV-TAVR and ViV-TMVR, provide an updated overview of the main clinical results, and summarize the future perspectives of this evolving field.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, with Present-Day Innovations and Up-to-Date Techniques

Approximately 51,000 to 65,000 surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) cases are performed in the United States anually. Bioprosthetic degeneration commonly occurs within 10 to 15 years, and nearly 800 redo SAVR cases occur each year. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative, as the Food and Drug Administration approved ViV TAVR with self-expanding transcatheter heart valve in 2015 and balloon-expandable valve in 2017 for failed surgical valves cases at high risk of reoperation. We review ViV TAVR, with specific attention to procedural planning, technical challenges, associated complications, and long-term follow-up.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expandable Supra-Annular Valves for Degenerated Surgical Bioprostheses: Insights From Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self‐expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure.

Methods and Results

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 1‐year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons‐American College of Cardiology‐Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty‐day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types (P=0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all‐cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all‐cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all‐cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all‐cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%).

Conclusions

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self‐expandable supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the supra-annular, self-expandable Evolut platform: Insights from the Transcatheter valve Therapy Registry

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety profile of redo-TAVR procedures from patients in the transcatheter valve therapy (TVT) Registry.

BACKGROUND

The use of transcatheter aortic valves (TAV) to treat previously implanted failing TAVS (TAV-in-TAV) has been an increasingly important topic as indications for TAVR move to younger and lower-risk patients, but data on the safety and efficacy of redo-TAVR is limited.

METHODS

Patients undergoing redo-TAVR procedures using the Evolut R, Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ valve in the TVT Registry between April 2015 and March 2020 were included. In-hospital, 30-day and 1-year outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Redo-TAVR was performed in 292 patients (213 patients received the Evolut R valve and 79 received the Evolut PRO or PRO+ valve). Device success was achieved in 94.5%. In-hospital mortality was 2.1%, stroke occurred in 2.7%, and 77.2% of patients were discharged home. There were no cases of coronary compression/obstruction or myocardial infarction that occurred in index hospitalization. Mean gradient at 30-days was 11.9 ± 6.9 mmHg, and 73.1% had none/trace total aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the TVT Registry demonstrate good short-term outcomes after redo-TAVR with the supra-annular, self-expandable Evolut platform. Long-term follow-up is necessary to further expand understanding this complex scenario.

Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective area of a prosthetic valve inserted into a patient is inferior to that of a normal human valve; the hemodynamic consequence of a valve too small compared with the size of the patient's body is the generation of higher than expected transprosthetic gradients. Despite evidence of increased risk of short- and long-term mortality and of structural valve degeneration in patients with PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement, its clinical impact in patients subject to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is yet unclear. We aim to review and update on the definition and incidence of PPM after TAVI, and its prognostic implications in the overall population and in higher-risk subgroups, such as small aortic annuli or valve-in-valve procedures. Last, we will focus on the armamentarium available in order to reduce risk of PPM when planning a TAVI procedure.

Valve-in-Surgical-Valve With SAPIEN 3 for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality

[Figure: see text].

Meta-Analysis of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo-surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) in failed bioprosthetic aortic valves. We conducted a comprehensive review of previous publications of all relevant studies through August 2020. Twelve observational studies were included with a total of 8,430 patients, and a median-weighted follow-up period of 1.74 years. A pooled analysis of the data showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; p = 0.21), cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage between ViV-TAVI and Redo-SAVR groups. The rate of major bleeding (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83, p = 0.02), procedural mortality (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, p = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.74, p <0.0001), and the rate of stroke (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81, p = 0.0001) were significantly lower in the ViV- TAVI arm when compared with Redo-SAVR arm. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was significantly higher post-implantation in the ViV-TAVI group when compared with the Redo-SAVR arm (Mean difference 3.92; 95% CI 1.97 to 5.88, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, compared with Redo-SAVR, ViV-TAVI is associated with a similar risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage. However, the rate of major bleeding, stroke, procedural mortality and 30-day mortality were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVI group when compared with Redo-SAVR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses Using a Self-Expanding Device (from the Prospective VIVA Post Market Study)

Patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis are often treated with a surgical valve replacement. Surgical bioprosthetic valves degenerate over time and therefore may necessitate a redo surgery. This analysis reports the 2-year clinical outcomes of the Valve-in-Valve study, which evaluated transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve and Evolut R devices in patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses at high risk for surgery. The prospective Valve-in-Valve study enrolled 202 eligible patients with failing surgical aortic bioprostheses due to stenosis, regurgitation, or a combination of both. The Evolut R bioprosthesis was used in 90.5% of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation cases. Two-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were 16.5% and 11.1%, respectively. Other clinical events included stroke (7.9%), disabling stroke (1.7%), and new pacemaker implantation (10.1%). The 2-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with discharge mean gradients ≥20 mmHg vs. those with lower mean gradients (21.0% vs 7.6%, p = 0.025). Discharge mean gradients ≥20 mm Hg were associated with smaller surgical bioprostheses (OR, 7.2 [95% CI 2.3 to 22.1]. In patients with failing surgical aortic bioprostheses, valve-in-valve treatment using a supra-annular self-expanding bioprosthesis provides significant functional improvements with acceptable rates of complications, especially if a postprocedural mean gradient of <20 mmHg can be achieved.

Balloon-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated Mitroflow bioprostheses: clinical and echocardiographic long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the risks associated with valve-in-valve procedures for treating structural valve deterioration in Mitroflow bioprostheses, as well as to determine the impact of the original Mitroflow size on the patients' long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and September 2019, 21 patients (61.9% males; mean age 82.4 ± 5.4 years) were treated for Mitroflow deterioration with valve-in-valve procedures (12 transapical and 9 transfemoral).

RESULTS

Mean EuroSCORE I and EuroSCORE II were 28.2% ± 13.6% and 10.5% ± 6.1%, respectively. Six patients presented an indexed aortic root diameter <14 mm/m2 and 7 patients a diameter of sinus of Valsalva <30 mm. Implanted transcatheter valve sizes were 20 mm in 6 cases, 23 mm in 14 cases and 26 mm in 1 patient. A Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 complication occurred in 23.8% of cases, including 3 coronary occlusions. In-hospital mortality was 9.5%. The 20 mm transcatheter valves presented significantly higher postoperative peak and mean aortic gradients than other sizes (54.1 ± 11.3 mmHg vs 29.9 ± 9.6 mmHg, P = 0.003; and 29.3 ± 7.7 mmHg vs 17.4 ± 5.9 mmHg, P = 0.015, respectively). There were 12 cases of patient-prosthesis mismatch (57.1%) and 3 cases (14.3%) of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. Cumulative survival was 85.7% ± 7.6% at 1 year, 74.3% ± 10% at 2 years and 37.1% ± 14.1% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve procedures with balloon-expandable transcatheter valves associate a high risk of coronary occlusion in patients with indexed aortic root diameter <14 mm/m2 and low coronary ostia <12 mm. Valve-in valve procedures with 20 mm balloon-expandable transcatheter valves in ≤21 mm Mitroflow bioprosthesis leave significant residual transvalvular gradients that might obscure patients' long-term outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for a Degenerated Transcatheter Valve-A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

 The transcatheter valve-in-valve treatment (TAV-in-TAV) of degenerated transcatheter aortic valves is becoming more relevant, as the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) increases. We report our experience with TAV-in-TAV in patients with a degenerated transcatheter heart valve (THV).

METHODS

 We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from our designated TAVR database. Intraprocedural and intrahospital outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

 Ten patients out of a total of 3,144 TAVR implantations since 2007 presented with a degenerated THV, among those six with an Edwards Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States) valve, treated with a Medtronic Evolut R (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) valve. Four patients had severe stenosis, one pure insufficiency, and five combined stenosis and insufficiency. Average time between initial implantation and re-intervention was 6.8 ± 1.3 years. The mean preoperative maximum and mean gradients were 54.2 ± 14.8 mm Hg and 31.6 ± 9.9 mm Hg, respectively. Nine patients underwent transfemoral and one patient underwent transaortic TAV-in-TAV. Mean procedural time was 86.2 ± 51.5 minutes. Post-implantation, the maximum and mean gradients decreased to 18 ± 6.9 mm Hg and 8.4 ± 3.2 mm Hg (16 ± 8 mm Hg and 6.4 ± 1.7 mm Hg in the Evolut-in-Sapien subgroup), respectively. The valve area increased from 0.98 ± 0.28 mm Hg to 1.72 ± 0.32 mm Hg (0.8 ± 0.07 mm Hg to 1.9 ± 0.16 mm Hg in the Evolut-in-Sapien subgroup). Two patients experienced a vascular complication. No further Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria complications occurred during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

 TAV-in-TAV resulted in low procedural and peri-procedural complication rates. In particular, the usage of a supra-annular valve resulted in excellent hemodynamic results. Larger studies are required to validate this observational data and to establish a protocol for this procedure.

Allegra Transcatheter Heart Valve inside a Degenerated Sutureless Aortic Bioprosthesis

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (VIV) is increasingly being used to successfully treat degenerated surgical aortic valve bioprostheses (SAVs). The new self-expanding transcatheter heart valve Allegra, from New Valve Technology with its special implantation mechanism, has proven its safety and feasibility for patients with degenerated SAVs, but it has never been used in the latest-generation sutureless SAV. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description of the successful VIV of the Allegra prosthesis into a degenerated sutureless SAV, and the procedure yielded an excellent postinterventional hemodynamic results.

Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves vs. native aortic stenosis: insights from a meta-analysis

There is no meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves (ViV-TAVI) and native valve TAVI for aortic stenosis (NV-TAVI). We aimed to investigate clinical outcomes between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI using a meta-analysis. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched through April 2020 to investigate the comparative outcomes between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI. The main outcomes were short-term (30-day/in-hospital) mortality, pacemaker implantation (PMI), life threatening and/or major bleeding, stroke, and coronary obstruction, and long-term (1-year) mortality and stroke. Our search identified 5 observational studies enrolling a total of 8428 patients (1442 patients with ViV-TAVI and 6986 with NV-TAVI). ViV-TAVI was associated with significantly lower rates of short-term mortality, PMI, and life threatening and/or major bleeding, compared with NV-TAVI (relative risk [RR] [95% CI] 0.54 [0.34-0.84], P = 0.007; 0.25 [0.19-0.35], P < 0.0001; 0.64 [0.46-0.89], P = 0.008, respectively). There were no significant differences in rates of short-term stroke and coronary obstruction between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI (RR [95% CI] 0.59 [0.35-1.01], P = 0.06; 1.86 [0.78-4.41], P = 0.16, respectively). ViV-TAVI was also associated with a significantly lower rate of 1-year mortality compared with NV-TAVI (RR [95% CI] 0.64 [0.51-0.81], P = 0.0002), whereas there was no significant difference in long-term stroke (RR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.45-1.12], P = 0.51). ViV-TAVI was associated with significantly lower rates of short-term mortality, PMI, and life threatening and/or major bleeding, and long-term mortality, without increased risks of stroke and coronary obstruction, compared with NV-TAVI.

Unique technical challenges in patients undergoing TAVR for failed aortic homografts

OBJECTIVE

Surgical reoperation for aortic homograft structural valve degeneration (SVD) is a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for homograft-SVD is an alternative to reoperation, but descriptions of implantation techniques are limited. This study compares outcome in patients undergoing into two groups by the type of previously implanted aortic valve prosthesis: TAVR for failed aortic homografts (TAVR-H) or for stented aortic bioprostheses (TAVR-BP).

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, TAVR was performed in 41 patients with SVD. Thirty-three patients in the TAVR-BP group (six for SVD of valved conduits), and eight patients in the TAVR-H group. The Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria were used for outcome reporting purposes.

RESULTS

The patients with TAVR-BP had predominant prosthetic stenosis (94%, p = .002), whereas TAVR-H individuals presented mostly with regurgitation (88%, p = <.001). Patients with TAVR-H received: Sapien-3 (6), Sapien-XT (1), and CoreValve (1) devices. Low, 40% ventricular fixation in relation to homograft annulus was attempted to anchor the prosthesis on the homograft suture-line. One patient with TAVR-BP experienced intraoperative distal prosthesis migration and Type-B aortic dissection, and two patients in the TAVR-H group had late postoperative proximal device migration. In both groups, there was zero 30-day mortality, stroke, or pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR for failing aortic homografts may be a feasible and safe alternative to high-risk surgical reintervention. Precise, 40%-ventricular device positioning appears crucial for prevention of late paravalvular leak/late prosthesis migration and minimizing the risk of repeat surgical intervention.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves

AIMS

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence regarding the rates of procedural success and the incidence of adverse outcomes following valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search of major electronic databases was conducted for studies relevant to patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves undergoing VIV-TAVR. The primary outcome was procedural success. A total of 5,553 patients from 24 studies were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 7.84±5.14. The procedural success rate was high (97%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94-98%). At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 5% (95% CI: 3-6%), stroke 2% (95% CI: 1-2%), myocardial infarction 1% (95% CI: 1-2%), permanent pacemaker placement 6% (95% CI: 5-8%), and aortic regurgitation 7% (95% CI: 5-10%). At one year, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 12% (95% CI: 10-14%), stroke 3% (95% CI: 2-4%), myocardial infarction 1% (95% CI: 0-2%), and permanent pacemaker placement 7% (95% CI: 5-11%). At three years, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 29% (95% CI: 25-34%) and stroke 6% (95% CI: 5-9%).

CONCLUSIONS

VIV-TAVR appears to be associated with high procedural success rates and low adverse outcomes during the short-term and midterm follow-up period.

TAVR for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses Using a Self-Expanding Device: 1-Year Results From the Prospective VIVA Postmarket Study

OBJECTIVES

The VIVA (Valve in Valve) trial was designed to systematically and prospectively collect data regarding the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with failing surgical aortic bioprostheses at high-risk for reoperation.

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the standard of care in symptomatic patients with aortic valve disease. However, bioprosthetic valves degenerate over time, requiring redo surgery.

METHODS

VIVA is an international, observational, single-arm, postmarket study conducted at 23 sites that enrolled 202 patients with symptomatic degeneration of an aortic bioprosthesis eligible for elective treatment with a CoreValve or Evolut R self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve.

RESULTS

Patients were elderly (mean age 79.9 years), 47.5% were men, and they had a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 6.6%. Although 41.8% of patients had surgical bioprostheses with labeled size ≤21 mm, valve hemodynamic parameters were markedly improved from baseline (mean aortic valve gradient 35.0 ± 16.3 mm Hg) to discharge (17.5 ± 8.6 mm Hg) and were sustained at 1 year (15.5 ± 7.5 mm Hg). At 1 year, total aortic regurgitation greater than mild was measured in 1.1% of patients. Clinical outcomes at 30 days demonstrated low mortality (2.5%), no disabling strokes, a 0.5% rate of acute kidney injury, and an 8.0% rate of new pacemaker implantation. At 1 year, the mortality rate remained low (8.8%), with 1 disabling stroke (0.6%). Five patients (2.5%) experienced coronary artery obstructions, 3 during and 1 immediately after the procedure and 1 several months later.

CONCLUSIONS

Degenerated surgical bioprostheses can be safely treated with the CoreValve or Evolut R platform using the catheter-based valve-in-valve procedure. Excellent 1-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were achieved in this real-world patient population. (CoreValve VIVA Study Evaluation of the Clinical Outcomes of CoreValve in Degenerative Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis; NCT02209298).

Midterm results after St Jude Medical Epic porcine xenograft for aortic, mitral, and double valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the results after stented porcine xenograft implantation (Epic, SJM, St Paul, MN) with Linx anticalcification treatment in elderly patients at our high-volume tertiary care center.

METHODS

A total of 3825 patients undergoing aortic (AVR = 2441), mitral (MVR = 892), or double valve (DVR = 492) replacement between 11/2001 and 12/2017 with Epic xenografts were evaluated. Outcomes were assessed by reviewing the prospectively acquired hospital database results, and regular annual follow-up information was acquired from questionnaires or telephone interviews.

RESULTS

For patients undergoing AVR, MVR, DVR, age at surgery were 76.4 ± 6, 71.2 ± 9, 72.9 ± 8 years; active endocarditis was an indication for valve surgery in 4.5%, 20.7%, 19.7%; and the predicted median (interquartile range [IQR]) mortality risk (EuroSCORE II) was 5.2% (3.1%-9.4%), 7.5% (3.9%-16.2%), 9.9% (6.0%-19.6%), respectively. Median follow-up was 3.04 (IQR: 0.18-5.21). Thirty-day survival was 91.2% ± 0.6%, 87.6% ± 0.1.1%, 84.7% ± 1.6%; and 10-year survival was 56.7% ± 1.0%, 59.4% ± 2.5%, 50.45% ± 3.1%, respectively. Patients who underwent MVR versus AVR were at significant increased risk for reoperation for endocarditis (adjusted odds ratio; 2.2, 95% confidence interval; 1.29-3.7; P = .003). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at midterm in AVR vs MVR in the matched cohort (P = .85).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the Epic stented porcine xenograft is associated with acceptable survival and freedom from valve-related complications or reoperation due to structural valve disease at midterm follow-up.

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

Aims

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.

Methods and results

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 &gt; 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)].

Conclusions

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

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.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Position Statement for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement has rapidly changed the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is now the standard of care for patients believed to be inoperable or at high surgical risk, and a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for those at intermediate surgical risk. Recent clinical trial data have shown the benefits of this technology in patients at low surgical risk as well. This update of the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society TAVI position statement incorporates clinical evidence to provide a practical framework for patient selection that does not rely on surgical risk scores but rather on individual patient evaluation of risk and benefit from either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement. In addition, this statement features new wait time categories and treatment time goals for patients accepted for TAVI. Institutional requirements and recommendations for operator training and maintenance of competency have also been revised to reflect current standards. Procedural considerations such as decision-making for concomitant coronary intervention, antiplatelet therapy after intervention, and follow-up guidelines are also discussed. Finally, we suggest that all patients with aortic stenosis might benefit from evaluation by the heart team to determine the optimal individualized treatment decision.

The learning curve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical studies: A systematic review

Background

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has become an essential alternative to surgical aortic-valve replacement in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and this procedure requires technical expertise. The aim of this study was to identify prospective studies on TAVI from the past 10 years, and then to analyze the quality of information reported about the learning curve.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of articles published between 2007 and 2017 was performed using PubMed and the EMBASE database. Prospective studies regarding TAVI were included. The quality of information reported about the learning curve was evaluated using the following criteria: mention of the learning curve, the description of a roll-in phase, the involvement of a proctor, and the number of patients suggested to maintain skills.

Results

A total of sixty-eight studies met the selection criteria and were suitable for analysis. The learning curve was addressed in approximately half of the articles (n = 37, 54 percent). However, the roll-in period was mentioned by only eight studies (12 percent) and with very few details. Furthermore, a proctorship was disclosed in three articles (4 percent) whereas twenty-five studies (37 percent) included authors that were proctors for manufacturers of TAVI.

Conclusion

Many prospective studies on TAVI over the past 10 years mention learning curves as a core component of successful TAVI procedures. However, the quality of information reported about the learning curve is relatively poor, and uniform guidance on how to properly assess the learning curve is still missing.