Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison between the fluid-structure interaction approach and the finite element method approach to analyze the leaflet flutter in bioprosthetic aortic valve

The low durability of bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV), between 10-15 years, is associated with the development of leaflets flutter. Despite increasing calcification and structural damage of the BHV, leaflets flutter is an understudied condition. Therefore, the objective of this study is compare the oscillation characteristics of BHV leaflets obtained by the finite element method (FEM) technique and by the fluid-structural interaction (FSI) technique. A BHV geometry and a simplified fluid domain were developed. Physiological ventricular and aortic pressure were applied in the FEM and FSI simulations. The BHV were considered with incompressible hyperelastic and isotropic mechanical behavior, while the blood was modeled as a Newtonian fluid. Turbulence was modeled according to the k - ω SST model. The displacement and maximum principal stress results showed that the FSI approach was in better agreement with the in vitro studies in the literature. Furthermore, the leaflet vibration frequency was 12 times lower and the amplitude 50 times higher compared to the FEM method. From the stress distribution in the leaflets, the highest values occurred in the commissure region of the ventricular side for both techniques. In addition, while the stress was more uniform for FEM, FSI showed a stress concentration in the belly region of the leaflets. This study indicates that the use of the FEM technique to assess fatigue intensification due to leaflet fluttering could induce inaccurate conclusions, since it does not incorporate the dynamic fluid impacts on leaflets.

Sex differences in population versus in-hospital use of aortic valve replacement procedures in Spain

AIMS

It is not well known if sex differences in the use and results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) are changing. The aim of the study is to assess the time trends in the differences by sex in the utilization of AVR procedures in hospitals and in the community.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective observational analysis using data from the Spanish National Hospitalizations Administrative Database. All hospitalizations between 2016 and 2021 with a main diagnosis of aortic stenosis (International Classification of Diseases-10 codes: I35.0 and I35.2) were included. Time trends in hospitalization, AVRs, and hospital outcomes were analysed. Crude utilization and population-standardized rates were calculated. During the study period, 64 384 hospitalizations in 55 983 patients (55.5% men) with 36 915 (65.9%) AVR were recorded. Of these, 15 563 (42.2%) were transcatheters and 21 432 (58.0%) were surgical. At the hospital level, transcatheter procedures were more frequently performed in women (32.3% vs. 24.2%, P < 0.001), and surgical in men (42.9% vs. 32.5%, P < 0.001) but at the population level, surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) were used more frequently in men (12.6 surgical and 8.0 transcatheter per 100 000 population) vs. women (6.4 and 5.8, respectively; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Transcatheter procedures shifted from 17.3% in 2016 to 38.0% in 2021, overtaking surgical procedures in 2018 for women and 2021 for men.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR has displaced surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the most frequent AVR procedure in Spain by 2020. This occurred earlier in women, who, despite the greater weight of their age group in the older population, received fewer AVRs, both SAVR and TAVR.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration After TAVR and SAVR: Incidence, Diagnosis, Predictors, and Management

Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration (BAVD) is a significant clinical concern following both transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The increasing use of bioprosthetic valves in aortic valve replacement in younger patients and the subsequent rise in cases of BAVD are acknowledged in this review which aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the incidence, diagnosis, predictors, and management of BAVD. Based on a thorough review of the existing literature, this article provides an updated overview of the biological mechanisms underlying valve degeneration, including calcification, structural deterioration, and inflammatory processes and addresses the various risk factors contributing to BAVD, such as patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedural variables. The difficulties in early detection and accurate diagnosis of BAVD are discussed with an emphasis on the need for improved imaging techniques. The incidence and progression of BAVD in patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR are compared, providing insights into the differences and similarities between the two procedures and procedural impacts on valve longevity. The current strategies for managing BAVD, including re-intervention options of redo surgery and valve-in-valve TAVR, along with emerging treatments are discussed. The controversies in the existing literature are highlighted to offer directions for future investigations to enhance the understanding and management of BAVD.

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.

Management of bicuspid aortic valve disease in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation era

In an era of rapidly expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the management of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is far less well established than in those with trileaflet anatomy. Results of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement are excellent in suitable patients, and surgery also allows treatment of concomitant pathology of the aortic root and ascending aorta that is frequently encountered in this cohort. Conversely, TAVI provides an excellent alternative in older patients who may be unsuitable for surgery, although outcomes in BAV disease have only been reported in relatively small non-randomised series. Here, we discuss the pertinent literature on this topic and outline contemporary interventional treatment options in this challenging setting.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus isolated redo surgical aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study using institutional databases of transcatheter (2013-2022) and surgical (2011-2022) aortic valve replacements. Patients who underwent ViV TAVR were compared with patients who underwent redo isolated SAVR. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for heart failure readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 4200 TAVRs and 2306 isolated SAVRs were performed. Of these, there were 198 patients who underwent ViV TAVR and 147 patients who underwent redo SAVR. Operative mortality was 2% in each group, but observed to expected operative mortality in the redo SAVR group was higher than in the ViV TAVR group (1.2 vs 0.32). Those who underwent redo SAVR were more likely to require transfusions and reoperation for bleeding, to have new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis, and to require a permanent pacemaker postoperatively than those in the ViV group. Mean gradient was significantly lower in the redo SAVR group than in the ViV group at 30 days and 1 year. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1 year were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ViV TAVR was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death compared with redo SAVR (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.65-2.99; P = .40). Competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for heart-failure readmissions were higher in the ViV cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were associated with comparable mortality. Patients who underwent redo SAVR had lower postoperative mean gradients and greater freedom from heart failure readmissions, but they also had more postoperative complications than the VIV group, despite their lower baseline risk profiles.

Sutureless Aortic Prosthesis Valves versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Literature Review

Aortic stenosis remains the most frequently occurring valvular pathology in the elderly population of Western countries. According to the latest guidelines, the therapeutic choice of aortic stenosis depends on the age of the patient (<75 years or >75 years) and the risk class (STS-Prom/Euroscore II < o >4%). Therefore, if the surgical indication is clear in young and low-risk patients and percutaneous treatment is the gold standard in older and high-risk patients, the therapeutic choice is still debated in intermediate-risk patients. In this group of patients, aortic valve stenosis treatment depends on the patient's global evaluation, the experience of the center, and, no less importantly, the patient's will. Two main therapeutic options are debated: surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In addition, the progressive development of mininvasive techniques for aortic valve surgery (right-anterior minithoracotomy) has also reduced the peri- and post-operative risk in this group of patients. The purpose of this review is to compare sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedures: Challenges and Future Directions

Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed for the treatment of surgical bioprosthetic valve failure in patients at intermediate to high surgical risk. Although ViV procedures offer indisputable benefits in terms of procedural time, in-hospital length of stay, and avoidance of surgical complications, they also present unique challenges. Growing awareness of the technical difficulties and potential threats associated with ViV procedures mandates careful preprocedural planning. This review article offers an overview of the current state-of-the-art ViV procedures, with focus on patient and device selection, procedural planning, potential complications, and long-term outcomes. Finally, it discusses current research efforts and future directions aimed at improving ViV procedural success and patient outcomes.

Single-center real-world data and technical considerations from 100 consecutive patients treated with the Perceval aortic bioprosthesis

Objectives

Although the Perceval sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis presents a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve prostheses, the extent of its applicability with respect to technical considerations for a real-world patient collective is still under debate.

Methods

One hundred patients received the Perceval prosthesis [males: 59; age: 72.5 (7.3-79) years] between December 2015 and February 2023 [EuroSCORE II: 2.8 (1.7-5.4)] for an aortic valve replacement (AVR), with additional concomitant procedures, for underlying severe aortic valve stenosis [n = 93 (93)], endocarditis [n = 5 (5)], and redo AVR [n = 7 (7)] including a prior surgical AVR [n = 4 (4)] and a failed transcatheter aortic valve implantation [n = 3 (3)]. Surgery was conducted primarily by median sternotomy [n = 71 (71)] and, alternatively, by the upper hemisternotomy approach [n = 29 (29)].

Results

Over a median follow-up time of 36.5 (16.5-53) months, eight patients (8%) underwent postoperative pacemaker implantation, with five (5%) due to high-grade atrioventricular block, while nine patients experienced a stroke (9%). The median values of maximum and mean gradients across all valve sizes were 22 (18-27.5) mmHg and 10 (13-18) mmHg, respectively. Two patients (2%) had moderate and one (1%) had severe paravalvular leakage, with the latter presenting the only case of underlying valve migration and induced redo AVR with valve explantation 2 days following initial surgery. Thirty-day mortality (and overall mortality) was 5% and 26%, respectively.

Conclusion

The implantation of the Perceval bioprosthesis is feasible for a variety of indications, with excellent hemodynamic results and low complication rates in a real-world high-risk patient collective.

Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review

The mechanical valve was first invented in the 1950s, and since then, a wide variety of prostheses have been developed. Although mechanical valves have outstanding durability, their use necessitates life-long treatment with anticoagulants, which increases the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. The current guidelines recommend a mechanical prosthetic valve in patients under 50-60 years; however, for patients aged 50-70 years, the data are conflicting and there is not a clear-cut recommendation. In recent decades, progress has been made in several areas. First, the On-X mechanical valve was introduced; this valve has a lower anticoagulant requirement in the aortic position. Second, a potential alternative to vitamin K-antagonist treatment, rivaroxaban, has shown encouraging results in small-scale trials and is currently being tested in a large randomized clinical trial. Lastly, an innovative mechanical valve that eliminates the need for anticoagulant therapy is under development. We attempted to review the current literature on the subject with special emphasis on the role of mechanical valves in the current era and discuss alternatives and future innovations.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Undergoing Bentall Procedure

BACKGROUND

The widely used Bentall procedure is the criterion standard treatment for aortic root pathology. Studies comparing the long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients undergoing the Bentall procedure are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who underwent the Bentall procedure with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve between 2001 and 2018 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed to compare the 2 prosthetic types. In total, 1052 patients who underwent the Bentall procedure were identified. Among these patients, 351 (33.4%) and 701 (66.6%) chose bioprosthetic and mechanical valves, respectively. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, no significant differences in the in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77-1.19]; P=0.716) and all-cause mortality (34.1% vs. 38.1%; hazard ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.78-1.04]; P=0.154) were observed between the groups. The benefits of relative mortality associated with mechanical valves were apparent in younger patients and persisted until ≈50 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in survival benefits were observed between the valves in patients who underwent the Bentall procedure. Additionally, bioprosthetic valves may be a reasonable choice for patients aged >50 years when receiving the Bentall procedure in this valve-in-valve era.

Bioprosthetic Valve Remodeling in Nonfracturable Surgical Valves: Impact on THV Expansion and Hydrodynamic Performance

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the effect of bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) on transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and function following valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a nonfracturable surgical heart valve (SHV).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of BVR of nonfracturable SHVs on THVs after VIV implantation.

METHODS

VIV TAVR was performed using 23-mm SAPIEN3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences) or 23/26-mm Evolut Pro (Medtronic) THVs implanted in 21/23-mm Trifecta (Abbott Structural Heart) and 21/23-mm Hancock (Medtronic) SHVs with BVR performed with a noncompliant TRUE balloon (Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc). Hydrodynamic assessment was performed, and multimodality imaging including micro-computed tomography was performed before and after BVR to assess THV and SHV expansion.

RESULTS

BVR resulted in limited improvement of THV expansion. The largest gain in expansion was observed for the S3 in the 21-mm Trifecta with up to a 12.7% increase in expansion at the outflow of the valve. Minimal change was observed at the level of the sewing ring. The Hancock was less amenable to BVR with lower final expansion dimensions than the Trifecta. BVR also resulted in notable surgical post flaring of up to 17.6°, which was generally more marked with the S3 than with the Evolut Pro. Finally, BVR resulted in very limited improvement in hydrodynamic function. Severe pinwheeling was observed with the S3, which improved slightly but persisted despite BVR.

CONCLUSIONS

When performing VIV TAVR inside a Trifecta and Hancock SHV, BVR had a limited impact on THV expansion and resulted in SHV post flaring with unknown consequences on coronary obstruction risk and long-term THV function.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Redo Procedures: Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have presented favorable hemodynamic performance while facilitating minimally invasive access approaches. As the population ages, the number of patients at risk for aortic valve reoperation constantly increases. The aim of the present study is to present our single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in reoperations. Materials and Methods: The data of 18 consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR in a reoperation between May 2020 and January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The mean age of the patients was 67.9 ± 11.1 years; patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a median logistic EuroSCORE II of 7.8 (IQR of 3.8-32.0) %. The implantation of the Perceval S prosthesis was technically successful in all patients. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 103.3 ± 50.0 min, and the cross-clamp time was 69.1 ± 38.8 min. No patients required a permanent pacemaker implantation. The postoperative gradient was 7.3 ± 2.4 mmHg, and no cases of paravalvular leakage were observed. There was one case of intraprocedural death, while the thirty-day mortality was 11%. Conclusions: Sutureless bioprosthetic valves tend to simplify the surgical procedure of a redo AVR. By maximizing the effective orifice area, sutureless valves may present an important advantage, being a safe and effective alternative not only to traditional surgical prostheses but also to transcatheter valve-in-valve approaches in select cases.

Timing of bioprosthetic valve fracture in transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention: impact on valve durability and leaflet integrity

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) can be used to improve transcatheter heart valve (THV) haemodynamics following a valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention. However, whether BVF should be performed before or after THV deployment and the implications on durability are unknown.  Aims: We sought to assess the impact of BVF timing on long-term THV durability.

METHODS

The impact of BVF timing was assessed using small ACURATE neo (ACn) or 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3) THV deployed in 21 mm Mitroflow valves compared to no-BVF controls. Valves underwent accelerated wear testing up to 200 million (M) cycles (equivalent to 5 years). At 200M cycles, THV were evaluated by hydrodynamic testing, second-harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histology.

RESULTS

At 200M cycles, the regurgitant fraction (RF) and effective orifice area (EOA) for the ACn were 8.03±0.30%/1.74±0.01 cm2 (no BVF), 12.48±0.70%/1.97±0.02 cm2 (BVF before ViV) and 9.29±0.38%/2.21±0.0 cm2 (BVF after ViV), respectively. For the S3 these values were 2.63±0.51%/1.26±0.01 cm2, 2.03±0.42%/1.65±0.01 cm2, and 1.62±0.38%/2.22±0.01 cm2, respectively. Further, SHG and SEM revealed a higher degree of superficial leaflet damage when BVF was performed after ViV for the ACn and S3. However, the histological analysis revealed significantly less damage, as determined by matrix density analysis, through the entire leaflet thickness when BVF was performed after ViV with the S3 and a similar but non-significant trend with the ACn.  Conclusions: BVF performed after ViV appears to offer superior long-term EOA without increased RF. Ultrastructure leaflet analysis reveals that the timing of BVF can differentially impact leaflets, with more superficial damage but greater preservation of overall leaflet structure when BVF is performed after ViV.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%).

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

New adverse coronary events in valve-in-valve TAVR and native TAVR—A 2-year matched cohort

Objective

To assess the incidence of new adverse coronary events (NACE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and valve-in-valve TAVR (ViV-TAVR).

Background

ViV-TAVR is an accepted treatment for degenerative prostheses among patients with high surgical-risk. TAVR studies have suggested an increased risk of coronary artery obstruction and flow stasis causing thrombus formation. Whether contemporary ViV-TAVR is associated with higher rate of coronary events compared to TAVR is unknown.

Methods

We used data from 1,224 TAVR patients between 2016 and 2021. We propensity-matched patients following ViV-TAVR and TAVR by significant predictors to overcome confounders in patients' baseline characteristics and procedural factors.

Results

The matched population included 129 patients in each group. In line with prior reports, there was a higher in-hospital coronary artery obstruction rate with ViV-TAVR (3.1 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.23). Despite this, 2-year cumulative NACE rates were similar between groups (4.7 vs. 6.2%, respectively, p = 0.79), with no difference between its components: myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.210), unplanned coronary catheterization (p = 0.477), or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (p = 0.998). Moreover, hypoattenuated leaflets thickening (HALT) at 30-day CT was observed in nearly a quarter of the patients with no difference between groups (23.9 vs. 23.1%, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.50–1.28, p = 0.872). The progression rate of the coronary artery calcium score (CACS), assessed in a third of patients, was similar between groups (p log-rank = 0.468, 95% CI 0.12–1.24). Low coronary artery height was an unfavorable predictor for in-hospital coronary obstruction and 2-year NACE rate (HR 1.20 and HR 1.25, p = 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively).

Conclusion

At 2-year follow-up, ViV-TAVR was not associated with a higher rate of myocardial infarction, unplanned catheterization, coronary artery bypass grafting, or hypoattenuated leaflet thickening.

The role of mechanical valves in the aortic position in the era of bioprostheses and TAVR: Evidence-based appraisal and focus on the On-X valve

Patients who need a prosthetic aortic heart valve may decide, working with their cardiologist and cardiac surgeon, among a variety of options: surgical or transcatheter approach, bioprosthetic or mechanical valve, or a Ross procedure if suitable to their age and anatomy. This review article examines the evidence for survival benefit with mechanical aortic valves, discusses bioprosthetic structural valve degeneration and its consequences, and considers the risks of redo aortic valve surgery or subsequent valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter intervention. It highlights the unique characteristics of the On-X aortic valve, including the US Food and Drug Administration approved and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline supported reduced anticoagulation target INR of 1.5 to 2.0, and discusses the PROACT Xa trial comparing apixaban vs warfarin anticoagulation. The choice of prosthetic valve should be individualized, carefully considering each patient's unique circumstances. In that context, the On-X aortic valve offers a potential lifetime solution without need for a repeat operation, while minimizing the risks of long-term anticoagulation. In an era of enthusiasm for bioprosthetic and transcatheter-based approaches, the option of a second-generation bileaflet mechanical valve with optimized hemodynamics-the On-X aortic valve-may well align with patient expectations.

Decellularized versus cryopreserved pulmonary allografts for right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction during the Ross procedure: a meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

Background

The ideal conduit for repair of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) during the Ross procedure remains unclear and has yet to be fully elucidated. We perform a pairwise meta-analysis to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of decellularized versus cryopreserved pulmonary allografts for RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure.

Main body

After a comprehensive literature search, studies comparing decellularized and cryopreserved allografts for patients undergoing RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure were pooled to perform a pairwise meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Primary outcomes were early mortality and follow-up allograft dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rates and follow-up endocarditis. A total of 4 studies including 1687 patients undergoing RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure were included. A total of 812 patients received a decellularized pulmonary allograft, while 875 received a cryopreserved pulmonary allograft. Compared to cryopreserved allografts, the decellularized group showed similar rates of early mortality (odds ratio, 0.55, 95% confidence interval, 0.21–1.41, P = 0.22). At a mean follow-up period of 5.89 years, no significant difference was observed between the two groups for follow-up allograft dysfunction (hazard ratio, 0.65, 95% confidence interval, 0.20–2.14, P = 0.48). Similarly, no difference was seen in reintervention rates (hazard ratio, 0.54, 95% confidence interval, 0.09–3.12, P = 0.49) nor endocarditis (hazard ratio, 0.30, 95% confidence interval, 0.07–1.35, P = 0.12) at a mean follow-up of 4.85 and 5.75 years, respectively.

Conclusions

Decellularized and cryopreserved pulmonary allografts are associated with similar postoperative outcomes for RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure. Larger propensity-matched and randomized control trials are necessary to elucidate the efficacy of decellularized allografts compared to cryopreserved allografts in the setting of the Ross.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43044-021-00226-w.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

The self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (Medtronic Cardiovascular Corevalve and Evolut) is a supra-annular, trileafet porcine pericardial valves on a diamond lattice nickel-titanium alloy frame. The TAVR device has undergone significant improvements in design and procedural techniques to further increase safety, efficacy, and durability since they it was first released. Unique design characteristics, as well as patient and procedural factors, favor self-expanding over balloon-expandable prostheses in certain situations. The self-expanding transcatheter heart valve has proven to be an excellent option for severe aortic stenosis patients with any level of surgical risk and preliminary data suggest a comparable durability to surgical tissue valves.