Efficacy and safety of transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement for Mitroflow bioprosthetic valve dysfunction

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.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Coronary Obstruction Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

There is scant information about the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of coronary obstruction (CO) following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). A meta-analysis of the published studies from January 2000 to April 2020 was conducted, and the endpoint was CO. A total of 2858 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 77.7 ± 9.8, and 39.9% of them were female. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), and Logistic EuroSCORE were 8.9 ± 7.8, 16.0 ± 10.9, and 26.3 ± 16.3, respectively. The overall incidence of CO was 2.58%. CO incidence between patients with prior stented and stentless valves were significantly different (1.67% versus 7.17%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.25 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.14-0.44 (P < 0.00001). The first-generation valves were significantly associated with higher CO incidence compared with the second-generation valves (7.09% versus 2.03%; OR, 2.44; 95%CI, 1.06-5.62; P = 0.04), while no statistical difference was found between self-expandable valves and balloon-expandable valves (2.45% versus 2.60%; OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.55-1.79; P = 0.98). Virtual transcatheter to coronary ostia (VTC) distance (3.3 ± 2.1 mm, n = 29 versus 5.8 ± 2.4 mm, n = 169; mean difference, -2.70; 95%CI, -3.46 to -1.95; P < 0.00001) and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter (27.5 ± 3.8 mm, n = 23 versus 32.3 ± 4.0 mm, n = 101; mean difference, -3.80; 95%CI, -6.55 to -1.05; P = 0.007) were enormously shorter in patients with CO. The 24-hour, in-hospital, and 30-day mortality of patients with CO were 10.5%, 30.8%, and 37.1%, respectively. In conclusion, device selections, VTC distances, and SOV diameters may be important factors in assessing the CO risk in VIV-TAVR.

New Insights into Valve Hemodynamics

Heart valve diseases are common disorders with five million annual diagnoses being made in the United States alone. All heart valve disorders alter cardiac hemodynamic performance; therefore, treatments aim to restore normal flow. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art clinical and engineering advancements in heart valve treatments with a focus on hemodynamics. We review engineering studies and clinical literature on the experience with devices for aortic valve treatment, as well as the latest advancements in mitral valve treatments and the pulmonic and tricuspid valves on the right side of the heart. Upcoming innovations will potentially revolutionize treatment of heart valve disorders. These advancements, and more gradual enhancements in the procedural techniques and imaging modalities, could improve the quality of life of patients suffering from valvular disease who currently cannot be treated.

Severe structural deterioration of small aortic bioprostheses treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (VIV-TAVI) in patients with degenerated small bioprostheses.

METHODS

Outcomes of consecutive 27 high-risk patients (logistic EuroSCORE 35.5 ± 18.5%) with a mean age of 81.0 ± 5.9 years who underwent VIV-TAVI for degenerated small bioprostheses (19 mm-11.1%; 20 mm-11.1%; 21 mm-77.8%) were analyzed. Medtronic CoreValve (n = 11) or CoreValve Evolut-R prostheses (n = 16) were implanted. Follow-up was 3.2 ± 2.0 years.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 11.1%. One patient died intraoperatively due to left ventricle perforation, two others during the in-hospital period as a result of sudden cardiac death and pulmonary embolism. VIV-TAVI was completed in 26 cases (96.3%-success rate). Two patients required pacemaker implantation. Acute kidney injury occurred in two other patients. At discharge, mean transvalvular gradient was 19.2 ± 9.5 mmHg and in 25.9% of patients mean gradient exceeded 20 mmHg. Overall mortality was 25.9% and mortality from cardiac or unknown causes at 18.5%. Ninety percent of survivors were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfemoral VIV-TAVI in patients with small, degenerated bioprostheses appears to be a promising alternative to surgery. Although the vast majority of patients have significant improvement in their NYHA class, the rate of persistent, residual gradients is relatively high and will need to be followed closely with serial echocardiograms.