Early Outcomes for Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerative Freestyle 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.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement With Balloon- Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Patients With Degenerated Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with favorable outcomes in patients with degenerated stentless bioprosthesis. However, whether the outcomes after ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprosthesis differ between balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) remains unknown. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive patients who underwent ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis with BEVs (n = 42) versus SEVs (n = 17) in a single-health care system between 2013 and 2022. Overall, the mean age was 70.8 years and 74.6% were men. The mean transcatheter valve size was 26.3 ± 2.2 mm for BEVs and 26.4 ± 4 mm for SEVs (p = 0.93). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.0 ± 3.6 for BEVs and 7.5 ± 5.5 for SEVs (p = 0.22). Compared with patients who received BEVs, those who received SEVs had higher rates of device malposition (2.4% vs 23.5%, p <0.01), postdeployment balloon dilation (11.9% vs 35.5%, p = 0.04) and need for a second transcatheter device (2.4% vs 35.5%, p <0.01). However, both groups showed similar improvement in aortic valve function at 30-day and 1-year follow-up (incidence of 1-year severe patient-prosthesis mismatch in BEVs: 17.6% vs 14.3% in SEVs, p = 0.78). The 1- and 3-year mortality did not differ between BEVs and SEVs (11.9% vs 11.8% and 25% vs 30%, respectively, Log rank p = 0.9). In conclusion, performing ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis is technically challenging, especially when using SEVs; however, satisfactory positioning is possible in most cases, with excellent hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with BEVs and SEVs.

Interventional versus Surgical Treatment of Degenerated Freestyle Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

 Bioprosthetic stentless aortic valves may degenerate over time and will require replacement. This study aimed to evaluate early- and mid-term outcomes after isolated surgical redo aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) and transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (TAVI-VIV) for degenerated stentless Freestyle bioprostheses.

METHODS

 We reviewed records of 56 patients at a single center. Overall, 37 patients (66.1%) received TAVI-VIV and 19 (33.9%) received redo-SAVR.

RESULTS

 Thirty-day survival was similar in both groups (100%). One-year survival was comparable between groups (97.3% in TAVI-VIV and 100% in redo-SAVR, p = 1.0). The difference in mid-term survival after adjusting for age and EuroScore II was not significant (p = 0.41). The incidence of pacemaker implantation after TAVI-VIV was higher than after redo-SAVR (19.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

 The 30-day and 1-year survival rates after both procedures were outstanding, irrespective of baseline characteristics. Isolated redo-SAVR should be favored in young patients, as the pacemaker implantation rate is lower. TAVI-VIV for degenerated Freestyle prosthesis can be a method of choice in elderly patients and those with high operative risk.

Sequential transcatheter aortic and pulmonic valve replacement in bioprosthetic valve dysfunction: a case report

Background

Transcatheter valve replacement is a less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement and has become increasingly popular. It is often the preferred approach for patients with high surgical risk. In patients with multiple prior sternotomies and multi-valvular failure, sequential transcatheter valve replacements may be a viable option.

Case summary

We present the case of a 61-year-old-man with two prior sternotomies who underwent sequential transcatheter replacements of the aortic and pulmonic valves for symptomatic aortic and pulmonary stenosis. He was deemed high risk for a repeat sternotomy. The decision to perform sequential transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter pulmonic valve replacement (TPVR) a month apart was made. Patient underwent valve-in-valve TAVR in a stentless bioprosthetic valve with 29-mm Edwards Sapien 3 followed by TPVR with 26-mm Edwards Sapien 3. He tolerated both procedures well and was asymptomatic at 1-month follow up.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first reported successful case of sequential TAVR and TPVR with right ventricular outflow tract stenting in a patient with both aortic and pulmonic bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Our case demonstrates that transcatheter approach to multi-valvular replacements may be a viable option for high-risk surgical patients.

Outcomes after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using a balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien valve in patients with degenerated Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV TAVI) in degenerated Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis (FSB) has been reported as being technically challenging. This study sought to evaluate procedural data and outcomes after ViV TAVI using a balloon-expandable Edwards valve in patients with failed FSB.

Methods

Between August 2014 and December 2020, twenty-seven consecutive patients underwent ViV TAVI for symptomatic FSB failure at our institution using a Sapien XT (n=1) and Sapien 3 (n=26) valve, respectively. Endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria and were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Mean patient age was 75.7±8.2 years (female n=5, male n=22); Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.3%±6.2%. ViV implantation with correct positioning of the Edwards Sapien valve within the FSB was successful in all cases. Intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography revealed none/trace paravalvular regurgitation in twenty-five patients (92.6%), mild paravalvular regurgitation was present in two patients (7.4%). Neither of the patients had a mean gradient ≥20.0 mmHg excluding significant patient-prosthesis mismatch. Three early deaths (≤thirty days) occurred resulting in a device success rate of 88.8%. One-year and three-year survival rates for patients alive beyond day thirty after ViV TAVI were 95.8% and 70.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

ViV TAVI with Edwards Sapien valves lead to acceptable functional results in high-risk patients with degenerated FSB but early complications must be considered particularly during hospital stay.

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.

Freestyle Aortic Bioprostheses in Patients 60 Years old and Younger

Evaluate outcomes of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis in patients 60 years old and younger. All patients, 60 years old and younger, between January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2015 who underwent implantation of a Freestyle aortic valve at a single institution were reviewed. Medical records and telephone interviews were utilized for data collection. 515 patients were identified with an average age of 51.3 years. Mean follow up was 11.1 years. 225 full root replacements and 290 subcoronary implants were performed. Overall survival, including patients with concomitant procedures, at 15 years was 63.7% (95% CI 58.3-68.5). Isolated subcoronary implants (58%,167/290) had a 15-year survival of 71.6% (95% CI 62.6-78.7) vs 78.4% (95% CI 69.7, 84.9) for isolated root replacements (63%,141/225) which was not statistically significant (P = 0.397). No significant difference in operative SVD at 15 years occurred between full root replacements 37.6% (95% CI 27.2-50.2) vs subcoronary implants 39.4% (95% CI31.1, 49.0). 110 patients required reoperation solely for intrinsic SVD. 93% (102/110) failed due to aortic insufficiency. Of reoperative interventions for SVD, 37% (41/110) of patients required urgent reoperation and 4.5% (5/110) required emergent reoperation. Pseudoaneurysms developed in six of the full root replacements. Freestyle aortic valves have a high rate of acute failure requiring urgent or emergent reintervention in patients 60 years old and younger. This has led our group to shift practice away from their implantation.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus surgical redo aortic root replacement in patients with degenerated freestyle aortic bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV TAVI) represents a new treatment option for patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Comparative data to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated feasibility and outcome of ViV TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with symptomatic degenerated Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis (FSB).

METHODS

Between January 2002 and February 2020, 25 patients with failed FSB underwent ViV TAVI and 10 patients with failed FSB underwent redo SAVR. Endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria.

RESULTS

Age and logistic EuroSCORE II were higher in patients with ViV TAVI (75.4 ± 1.7 vs. 62.9 ± 5.1 years, p = .019; 11.5 ± 1.6 vs. 5.6 ± 5.6%, p = .007). Valve implantation was successful in all cases. Mean transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly lower in patients with redo SAVR than ViV TAVI (7.6 ± 1.0 vs. 10.3 ± 0.8 mmHg, p = .037). Aortic valve regurgitation was absent in 91% and 100% of patients with ViV TAVI and redo SAVR, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rates were 12% in the ViV TAVI cohort versus 0% in the redo SAVR cohort (p = .542). Within the first year after hospital discharge, one patient after ViV TAVI had redo surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVI and redo SAVR lead to excellent functional results in patients with degenerated FSB. Post-procedural early complications must be considered particularly in patients with ViV TAVI because of higher clinical risk profiles.

Long term follow up of percutaneous treatment for degenerated Mitroflow prosthesis with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

The durability of aortic valve bioprosthesis and the structural valve deterioration (SVD) are could be treated with valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This technique has been proven to be a feasible procedure with good results in selected patients. The aim of this work was to assess the long-term results of this TAVI with an autoexpandable valve in patients with failed Mitroflow (MF) bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Methods

Single center, observational and prospective study that included 65 consecutive patients with symptomatic failed MF bioprosthetic aortic valve, treated with VIV-TAVI. The primary endpoints were clinical long-term events including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, re-hospitalization due to heart failure, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the absence of SVD or patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and valve hemodynamics analysis at follow-up.

Results

Between March 2012 to July 2019, 65 symptomatic patients (age 80.4±5.9 years) with degenerated MF valves (numbers 19: 27.7%; 21: 38.5%; 23: 21.5%; 25: 12.3%) underwent CoreValve (n=11) or Evolut R (n=54) implantation (23, 26 and 29 mm sizes). The STS predicted risk of mortality was 6.39%±5.62%. The primary combined endpoint occurred in 32.3% of the cases. A total of 13 patients (20%) died during follow-up, but 4 (7.3%) from cardiovascular causes. Two patients were reported of having a stroke/TIA and 5 readmissions for cardiovascular causes were reported (2 of them within the first 30 days). Twenty-five patients (38.5%) presented PPM during follow-up, being PPM severe in 15 (23.1%).

Conclusions

Self-expanding TAVI for degenerated MF bioprosthesis has favourable long-term outcomes. It is a good option in order to avoid the risks of redo surgery in selected patients.

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.

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.

Midterm Outcomes for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failed Freestyle Bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is acceptable in patients at high risk for reoperation. Studies suggest that ViV TAVR in stentless valves may be technically more challenging. This study sought to evaluate midterm outcomes for ViV TAVR in the degenerative Freestyle ((Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN)) stentless bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Between October 2014 and January 2019, 56 patients underwent ViV TAVR for a failed Freestyle valve at a single institution using a commercially available self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve. Patient baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were applied.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 75 ± 8 years and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons mean risk score was 9% ± 8%. The predominant mode of Freestyle valve failure was regurgitation (77%), and 36 patients (64%) required urgent intervention for refractory acute heart failure. Device success using a self-expanding TAVR was 82%, with 6 cases (11%) requiring deployment of two transcatheter valves. There were 3 operative mortalities (5%). At 30-day follow-up, no patient had greater than moderate perivalvular regurgitation. Device success was higher in the later patients compared with patients done earlier (P = .02). Mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days and 1 year were 11 ± 8 and 9 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. For patients alive beyond day 30, 3-year survival was 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing ViV TAVR in the Freestyle valve using a self-expanding transcatheter valve presents a technical challenge, but may be feasible with good midterm results. Procedural success is associated with an early hazard learning curve.

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.

Reinterventions after freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement: an assessment of procedural risks

OBJECTIVES

Repeat aortic valve interventions after previous stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR) are considered technically challenging with an increased perioperative risk, especially after full-root replacement. We analysed our experience with reinterventions after stentless AVR.

METHODS

A total of 75 patients with previous AVR using a Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis (31 subcoronary, 15 root-inclusion and 29 full-root replacement) underwent reintervention in our centre from 1993 until December 2018. Periprocedural data were retrospectively collected from the department database and follow-up data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

Median age was 62 years (interquartile range 47-72 years). Indications for reintervention were structural valve deterioration (SVD) in 47, non-SVD in 13 and endocarditis in 15 patients. Urgent surgery was required in 24 (32%) patients. Reinterventions were surgical AVR in 16 (21%), root replacement in 51 (68%) and transcatheter AVR in 8 (11%) patients. Early mortality was 9.3% (n = 7), but decreased to zero in the past decade in 28 patients undergoing elective reoperation. Per indication, early mortality was 9% for SVD, 8% for non-SVD and 13% for endocarditis. Aortic root replacement had the lowest early mortality rate (6%), followed by surgical AVR (13%) and transcatheter AVR (25%, 2 patients with coronary artery obstruction). Pacemaker implantation rate was 7%. Overall survival rate at 10 years was 69% (95% confidence interval 53-81%).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat aortic valve interventions after stentless AVR carry an increased, but acceptable, early mortality risk. Transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures after stentless AVR require careful consideration of prosthesis leaflet position to prevent obstruction of the coronary arteries.