Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring replacement: Lessons learned from bioprosthetic surgical valve failures

Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Mitral Valve-In-Valve and Valve-In-Ring Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) or valve-in-ring (VIR) therapies for degenerated mitral bioprosthetic valves and rings are still evolving. We aimed to characterize short- and long-term outcomes of these procedures.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve articles describing mitral VIV or VIR implantation with at least 10 patients. Meta-analysis of proportions was carried out for 30-day or in-hospital outcomes of mortality, stroke, major bleeding, transfusion, acute kidney injury, procedural success, valve embolization, paravalvular leak, pacemaker implantation, and hospital stay. Individual patient data meta-analysis using Kaplan-Meier curve reconstruction was used to estimate long-term mortality of VIV, VIR and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR).

RESULTS

We analyzed 34 studies (7047 patients). Pooled procedural success was 94.8% in VIV and 80.5% in VIR. Pooled short-term mortality and stroke risk was 6.4% and 1.9% respectively in VIV, 9.1% and 1.6% respectively in VIR, and 8.4% and 5.5% respectively in SMVR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides prognostic information on clinical outcomes for redo SMVR and transcatheter mitral VIV and VIR implantation.

Comparative differences of mitral valve-in-valve implantation: A new mitral bioprosthesis versus current mosaic and epic valves

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) valve-in-valve (VIV) outcomes in three different mitral bioprostheses (of comparable measured internal diameters) under stable hemodynamic and surgical conditions by bench, echocardiographic, computerized tomography (CT), and autopsy comparisons pre- and post-valve implantation in a porcine model under matched controlled conditions.

BACKGROUND

Impact of surgical bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV procedures is unknown.

METHODS

Fifteen similar-sized Yorkshire pigs underwent pre-procedural CT screening. Twelve had consistent anatomic features and underwent implantation of mitral bioprostheses. Four valves from each of three manufacturers were implanted in randomized fashion: 27-mm Epic, 27-mm Mosaic, and 25-mm Mitris, followed by TMVR VIV with 26 Edwards Sapien3. Post-VIV, suprasternal TEE studies were performed to assess hemodynamic function, followed by a gated contrast CT. After euthanasia, animals underwent necropsy for anatomic evaluation.

RESULTS

All 12 animals had successful VIV implantation with no study deaths. The post vivMitris (3.77 ± 0.36)/(2.2 ± 0.25 mmHg) had the lowest peak/mean trans-mitral gradient and the vivEpic the highest (15.5 ± 2.55)/(7.09 ± 1.13 mmHg). All THVs (transcatheter heart valves) had greatest deformation within the center of the THV frame; with the smallest waist opening area in the vivEpic (329 ± 35.8 mm² ) and greatest in the vivMitris (414 ± 33.12 mm² ). Bioprosthetic frames without obvious radiopaque markers resulted in the most ventricular implantation of the THV's anteroseptal frame (Epic: -4.52 ± 0.76 mm), versus the most radiopaque bioprosthesis (Mitris: -1.18 ± 2.95 mm), and higher peak LVOT gradients (Epic: 4.82 ± 1.61 mmHg; Mitris: 2.91 ± 1.47 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrates marked variations in hemodynamics, THV opening area, and anatomic dimensions among measured similarly sized mitral bioprostheses. These data suggest a critical need for understanding the potential impact of variations in bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV clinical outcomes.