Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural degeneration of previously implanted transcatheter valves (TAVR-in-TAVR): a systematic review

TAVR-in-TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for paravalvular leak

Introduction

Paravalvular leak (PVL) is a severe complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) that can lead to poor outcomes. TAVR-in-TAVR is a promising treatment for PVL; however, reports on its safety or efficacy are limited. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable prostheses for PVLs after TAVR.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable Sapien prostheses for PVL after an initial TAVR at our institution. The procedural success, in-hospital complications, all-cause mortality, and echocardiographic data for up to 2 years post-surgery were evaluated.

Results

In total, 31 patients with a mean age of 81.1 ± 7.9 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.8 ± 5.4% were identified. The procedural success rate of TAVR-in-TAVR was 96.8% (30/31). No in-hospital deaths, cardiac tamponade, or conversion to sternotomy occurred. Re-intervention was performed in only one patient (3.2%) during hospitalization. The all-cause mortality rates at 30 days and 2 years were 0% and 16.1%, respectively. A significant reduction in the PVL rate was observed at 30 days compared with that at baseline (p < 0.01).

Discussion

Our findings suggest that TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable prostheses is safe and effective for PVL after TAVR with low complication rates and acceptable long-term outcomes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings.

Features and outcomes of bailout repeat transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): the Bailout Acute TAVI-in-TAVI to Lessen Events (BATTLE) international registry

AIM

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a mainstay in the management of severe aortic stenosis in patients with intermediate to prohibitive surgical risk. When a single TAVI device fails and cannot be retrieved, TAVI-in-TAVI must be performed acutely, but outcomes of bailout TAVI-in-TAVI have been incompletely appraised. We aimed at analyzing patient, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI in a multicenter registry.

METHODS

Details of patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI, performed acutely or within 24 h of index TAVI, in 6 international high-volume institutions, were collected. For every case provided, 2 same-week consecutive controls (prior TAVI, and subsequent TAVI) were provided. Outcomes of interest were procedural and long-term events, including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, access site complication, major bleeding, and reintervention, and their composite (i.e. major adverse events [MAE]).

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients undergoing bailout TAVI-in-TAVI were included, as well as 212 controls, for a total of 318 individuals. Bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was less common in younger patients, those with higher body mass index, or treated with Portico/Navitor or Sapien devices (all p < 0.05). Bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was associated with higher in-hospital rates of death, emergency surgery, MAE, and permanent pacemaker implantation (all p < 0.05). Long-term follow-up showed that bailout TAVI-in-TAVI was associated with higher rates of death and MAE (both < 0.05). Similar findings were obtained at adjusted analyses (all p < 0.05). However, censoring early events, outlook was not significantly different when comparing the two groups (p = 0.897 for death, and p = 0.645 for MAE).

CONCLUSIONS

Bail-out TAVI-in-TAVI is associated with significant early and long-term mortality and morbidity. Thus, meticulous preprocedural planning and sophisticated intraprocedural techniques are of paramount importance to avoid these emergency procedures.

Transcatheter interventions for left-sided valvular heart disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery

Valvular heart disease (VHD) is one of the most frequent causes of heart failure (HF) and is associated with poor prognosis, particularly among patients with conservative management. The development and improvement of catheter-based VHD interventions have broadened the indications for transcatheter valve interventions from inoperable/high-risk patients to younger/lower-risk patients. Cardiogenic shock (CS) associated with severe VHD is a clinical condition with a very high risk of mortality for which surgical treatment is often deemed a prohibitive risk. Transcatheter valve interventions might be a promising alternative in this setting given that they are less invasive. However, supportive scientific evidence is scarce and often limited to small case series. Current guidelines on VHD do not contain specific recommendations on how to manage patients with both VHD and CS. The purpose of this clinical consensus statement, developed by a group of international experts invited by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) Scientific Documents and Initiatives Committee, is to perform a review of the available scientific evidence on the management of CS associated with left-sided VHD and to provide a rationale and practical approach for the application of transcatheter valve interventions in this specific clinical setting.

The Evolving Role of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valvular Procedures

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; it was initially intended for high-risk patients and has now expanded its use to patients of all risk groups. While TAVR has demonstrated promising outcomes in diverse patient populations, uncertainties persist regarding its long-term durability and potential complications, raising the issue of the ideal lifetime management strategy for patients with AS. Therefore, SAVR continues to play an important role in clinical practice, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies, those with complex aortic anatomy who are unsuitable for TAVR, and those requiring concomitant surgical procedures. The choice between TAVR and SAVR warrants personalized decision-making, considering patient characteristics, comorbidities, anatomical considerations, and overall life expectancy. A multidisciplinary approach involving an experienced heart team is crucial in the preoperative evaluation process. In this review, we aimed to explore the current role of surgical management in addressing aortic valve stenosis amidst the expanding utilization of less invasive transcatheter procedures.

Redo-TAVR: Essential Concepts, Updated Data and Current Gaps in Evidence

Within the last two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the treatment strategy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), representing a less invasive alternative to traditional open-chest surgery. With time, advances in device features, imaging planning, and implantation techniques have contributed to an improvement in safety as well as a reduction in procedural complications. This has led to the expansion of TAVR to lower-risk patients, where TAVR has shown favorable outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As TAVR expands to younger and lower-risk patients with longer life expectancies, the need for reintervention for failing transcatheter heart valves is expected to increase. Redo-TAVR has gained increasing relevance in the lifetime management of AS as one of the treatment strategies available for structural valve dysfunction (SVD). However, some issues are associated with this approach, including coronary re-access and the risk of coronary obstruction. In this review, we provide essential concepts to properly select candidates for Redo-TAVR, updated data on clinical outcomes and complication rates, and current gaps in evidence.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Addressing the Subsequent Risk of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a commonly used therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis, even in those patients at low surgical risk. The indications for TAVI have broadened as the therapy has proven to be safe and effective. Most challenges associated with TAVI after its initial introduction have been impressively reduced; however, the possible need for post-TAVI permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) secondary to conduction disturbances continues to be on the radar. Conduction abnormalities post-TAVI are always of concern given that the aortic valve lies in close proximity to critical components of the cardiac conduction system. This review will present a summary of noteworthy pre-and post-procedural conduction blocks, the best use of telemetry and ambulatory device monitoring to avoid unnecessary PPI or to recognize the need for late PPI due to delayed high-grade conduction blocks, predictors to identify those patients at greatest risk of requiring PPI, important CT measurements and considerations to optimize TAVI planning, and the utility of the MInimizing Depth According to the membranous Septum (MIDAS) technique and the cusp-overlap technique. It is stressed that careful membranous septal (MS) length measurement by MDCT during pre-TAVI planning is necessary to establish the optimal implantation depth before the procedure to reduce the risk of compression of the MS and consequent damage to the cardiac conduction system.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry

BACKGROUND

Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown.

METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis-patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis-patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis

Over the last twenty years, we marked significant progresses in the field of tissue engineering and the development of new aortic valve structural and delivery systems. These continuous iterations on the field, have completely changed the surgical indications and approaches for AVR. Nowadays, therapeutic decisions are endorsed by international guidelines; however, new technical advances need a new integrated approach. The clinical scenarios issued from the interaction between the Guidelines and the newest approaches and technologies are regularly on debate by the Heart Team. We will present some of our most encountered situations and the pattern of our therapeutic decisions. To easily navigate through Guidelines and clinical scenarios, we reported in this review a simplified and easy to use Clinical decision-making algorithm that may be a valuable tool in our daily practice.