Valve-in-Valve Implantation of Medtronic CoreValve Prosthesis in Patients with Failing Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

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.

Transoesophageal echocardiography-guided 'primary' valve-in-valve technique in cardiogenic shock: a case report

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation inside a previously implanted bioprosthesis is an alternative treatment for patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis (AB) at high surgical risk. Pre-operative computed tomography (CT) scan provides essential information to the procedure planning, although in case of acute presentation it is not always feasible.

Case summary

A 32-year-old man with history of surgical treatment of aortic coarctation and Bio-Bentall procedure was transferred to our department in cardiogenic shock with a suspected diagnosis of acute myocarditis. A transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) revealed a severely impaired biventricular function and AB degeneration causing severe stenosis. It was decided to undertake an urgent trans-apical valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure. Due to haemodynamic instability, a preoperative CT scan was not performed and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) was the main intraprocedural guiding imaging technique. Neither intraprocedural nor periprocedural complications occurred. Serial post-procedural TTE exams showed good functioning of the bioprosthesis and progressive improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction. Patient was discharged from the hospital 8 days after the intervention.

Discussion

A patient with cardiogenic shock due to severe degeneration of the AB was treated with urgent transapical ViV procedure. In this case, where urgent ViV technique was needed, TOE appeared to be a crucial alternative to CT scan and allowed us to perform a successful procedure.

Meta-Analysis of Stroke and Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

During the past decade, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was extended beyond treatment‐naïve patients and implemented for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. Selection criteria for either valve‐in‐valve (viv) TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement are not well established, and decision making on the operative approach still remains challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team.

Methods and Results

This review was intended to analyze all studies on viv‐TAVR focusing on short‐ and mid‐term stroke and mortality rates compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR procedures. A structured literature search and review process led to 1667 potentially relevant studies on July 1, 2020. Finally, 23 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. All references were case series either with or without propensity score matching and registry analyses. Quantitative synthesis of data from 8509 patients revealed that viv‐TAVR is associated with mean 30‐day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Pooled data analysis showed no significant differences in 30‐day stroke rate, 30‐day mortality, and 1‐year mortality between viv‐TAVR and comparator treatment (native TAVR [n=11 804 patients] or redo surgical aortic valve replacement [n=498 patients]).

Conclusions

This review is the first one comparing the risk for stroke and mortality rates in viv‐TAVR procedures with native TAVR approach and contributes substantial data for the clinical routine. Moreover, this systematic review is the most comprehensive analysis on ischemic cerebrovascular events and early mortality in patients undergoing viv‐TAVR. In this era with increasing numbers of bioprosthetic valves used in younger patients, viv‐TAVR is a suitable option for the treatment of degenerated bioprostheses.

Cardiac conduction abnormalities in patients with degenerated bioprostheses undergoing transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantations and their impact on long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The relationship between preoperative cardiac conduction abnormalities (CCA) and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (TAVI-VIV) remains unclear. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative CCA on mortality and morbidity after TAVI-VIV and to estimate the impact of new-onset CCA on postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2020, 201 patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses were qualified for TAVI-VIV procedures in two German heart centers. Cases with previously implanted permanent rhythm-controlling devices were excluded (n = 53). A total of 148 subjects met the eligibility criteria and were divided into 2 study groups according to the presence of preexisting CCA (CCA (n = 84) and non-CCA (n = 64), respectively). Early and late mortality and morbidity were evaluated. Follow-up functional status was assessed according to New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification.

RESULTS

There were no procedural deaths. TAVI-VIV related new-onset CCAs were observed in 35.8% patients. The 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 1.6% in non-CCA vs 9.5% in CCA group (p = 0.045). Preexisting right bundle-branch block (OR:5.01; 95%CI, 1.05-23.84) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR:4.55; 95%CI, 1.10-18.73) were independent predictors of new pacemaker implantation. One-year and five-year probability of survival were comparable in CCA and non-CCA groups: 90.3% vs 91.8% and 68.2% vs 74.3%, respectively. Surviving patients with preexisting and new-onset CCA had a worse functional status according to NYHA classification at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Preexisting and new-onset postoperative CCAs did not affect early and late mortality after TAVI-VIV procedures, however, they may have a negative impact on late functional status.

New Challenging Scenarios in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Valve-in-valve, Bicuspid and Native Aortic Regurgitation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the most frequently performed structural technique in the field of interventional cardiology. Initially, this procedure was only used in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive risk. Now, barely one decade after its introduction, TAVI indications extend to low- and intermediate-risk patients. Despite these advances, several challenging scenarios are still on the periphery of the evidence base for TAVI. These include valve-in-valve procedures, lower-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve and the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation. Whereas the valve-in-valve indication has expanded rapidly, evidence for the use of TAVI compared with conventional surgery for bicuspid aortic valve is limited, including the best choice of device should TAVI be used. Evidence for TAVI in pure aortic regurgitation is still anecdotal because of suboptimal outcomes. Operators worldwide have described variations in the TAVI procedural technique to achieve commissural alignment and to minimise the rate of pacemaker use through cusp overlap implantation. In light of the potential clinical benefits, this may also be an area of further development. This review aims to discuss the current evidence available supporting the use of TAVI for these new indications.

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.

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.

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation after aortic valve repair with HAART 300 device

We report the first successful case, to our knowledge, of CoreValve Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) implantation into a failed HAART 300 aortic annuloplasty device (BioStable Science & Engineering, TX). An 81-year-old man presented with severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation secondary to failure of the 21 mm HAART 300 device, which had been implanted 45 days previously. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) revealed grade 3 aortic regurgitation with central jet, without aortic valve stenosis. Because of the high risk for redo surgery, the heart team proceeded with femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The 26 mm CoreValve Evolut R was deployed into the 21 mm HAART 300 device without difficulty or complications. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The patient was discharged after 5 days. TTE showed a mean aortic valve gradient of 18 mmHg, with minimal paravalvular leak. Our experience suggests that CoreValve Evolut R implantation may be an attractive option in patients with failed HAART 300 aortic annuloplasty.

Effect of transcatheter aortic valve size and position on valve-in-valve hemodynamics: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter heart valve implantation in failed aortic bioprostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]) is an increasingly used therapeutic option for high-risk patients. However, high postprocedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to evaluate Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R ViV hemodynamics in relation to the degree of device oversizing and depth of implantation.

METHODS

Evolut R devices of 23 and 26 mm were implanted within 21-, 23-, and 25-mm Hancock II bioprostheses. Small and gradual changes in implantation depth were attempted. Hemodynamic testing was performed in a pulse duplicator under ISO-5840 standard.

RESULTS

A total of 47 bench-testing experiments were performed. The mean gradient of the 26-mm Evolut R in 23- and 25-mm Hancock II was lower than 23-mm Evolut R (P < .001). However, the mean gradient of 26-mm Evolut R in 21-mm Hancock II bioprostheses R (ranging from 21.30 ± 0.23 to 24.30 ± 0.22 mm Hg) was worse than 23-mm Evolut R (ranging from 15.94 ± 0.18 to 20.35 ± 0.16 mm Hg, P < .001). Furthermore, our results suggest that supra-annular implantation of 23-mm and 26-mm Evolut R devices within the bioprostheses can lead to lower gradient and improved leaflet coaptation. Regardless of implantation depth, superior transvalvular gradient is expected with 26-mm Evolut R than 23-mm Evolut R in a nonstenotic Hancock II with a true internal diameter > 17.5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The current comprehensive bench-testing assessment demonstrates the importance of both transcatheter heart valve size and device position for the attainment of optimal hemodynamics during ViV procedures. Additional in vitro testing may be required to develop hemodynamics-based guidelines for device sizing in ViV procedures in degenerated surgical bioprostheses.

On the Mechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) represent the latest advances in prosthetic heart valve technology. TAVs are truly transformational as they bring the benefit of heart valve replacement to patients that would otherwise not be operated on. Nevertheless, like any new device technology, the high expectations are dampened with growing concerns arising from frequent complications that develop in patients, indicating that the technology is far from being mature. Some of the most common complications that plague current TAV devices include malpositioning, crimp-induced leaflet damage, paravalvular leak, thrombosis, conduction abnormalities and prosthesis-patient mismatch. In this article, we provide an in-depth review of the current state-of-the-art pertaining the mechanics of TAVs while highlighting various studies guiding clinicians, regulatory agencies, and next-generation device designers.

Combined venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of acute aortic prosthesis dysfunction in a high-risk patient

We describe the case of a patient with acute bioprosthesis dysfunction in cardiogenic shock, in whom hemodynamic support was provided by venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and successfully treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Histology of debris captured by a cerebral protection system during transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation

OBJECTIVE

Histological analyses of debris captured by a cerebral protection system (CPS) during transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) procedures have not been reported.

METHODS

Fifteen consecutive patients with stenotic aortic (n=13) or mitral (n=2) surgical or transcatheter bioprostheses were treated with implantation of a transcatheter heart valve (THV) in the presence of a dual-filter CPS. Mean patient age was 75 years; mean logistic EuroSCORE was 31%. Filters were collected and histological assessment of debris was performed. Patients were followed clinically until discharge.

RESULTS

Debris captured by either or both filters was detected in all patients. Acute thrombus was the most common type of debris, found in all patients, followed in frequency by arterial wall tissue (n=12 patients (80%)), calcification (n=11 (73%)) and valve tissue (n=9 (60%)). Less frequently found were organised thrombus (n=5 (30%)), foreign material (n=4 (27%)) and myocardium (n=2 (13%)). A median of 123 debris particles per patient was detected, with a trend towards a greater median number of particles collected in proximal filters (78 vs 39, p=0.065). The average maximum particle diameter was 88 (range 56-175) µm, with a median of 20 particles ≥150 µm. No stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) had occurred by the time of discharge (mean 8 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter VIV procedures were associated with the release of particulate debris into the cerebral circulation in all patients. The type of debris suggests that debris originates predominantly from arterial and valvular passage of the THV.

The expanding indications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), also known as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, is increasingly performed worldwide and is a technology that is here to stay. It has become the treatment of choice for inoperable patients and an alternative option for patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis. Early results of TAVI in intermediate-risk patients appear promising although larger randomized trial results are awaited before the widespread adoption of this technology in this big pool of patients. In patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis and degenerated surgical bioprostheses, TAVI has been shown to be feasible and relatively safe, though certain important considerations remain. Indications for TAVI are likely to grow as newer generation and improved devices and delivery systems become available.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus reoperative conventional aortic valve replacement: a systematic review

Transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) implantation for degenerated aortic bioprostheses has emerged as a promising alternative to redo conventional aortic valve replacement (cAVR). However there are concerns surrounding the efficacy and safety of VIV. This systematic review aims to compare the outcomes and safety of transcatheter VIV implantation with redoes cAVR. Six databases were systematically searched. A total of 18 relevant studies (823 patients) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated VIV achieved significant improvements in mean gradient (38 mmHg preoperatively to 15.2 mmHg postoperatively, P<0.001) and peak gradient (59.2 to 23.2 mmHg, P=0.0003). These improvements were similar to the outcomes achieved by cAVR. The incidence of moderate paravalvular leaks (PVL) were significantly higher for VIV compared to cAVR (3.3% vs. 0.4%, P=0.022). In terms of morbidity, VIV had a significantly lower incidence of stroke and bleeding compared to redo cAVR (1.9% vs. 8.8%, P=0.002 & 6.9% vs. 9.1%, P=0.014, respectively). Perioperative mortality rates were similar for VIV (7.9%) and redo cAVR (6.1%, P=0.35). In conclusion, transcatheter VIV implantation achieves similar haemodynamic outcomes, with lower risk of strokes and bleeding but higher PVL rates compared to redo cAVR. Future randomized studies and prospective registries are essential to compare the effectiveness of transcatheter VIV with cAVR, and clarify the rates of PVLs.

Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting

BACKGROUND

Due to a considerable rise in bioprosthetic as opposed to mechanical valve implantations, an increase of patients presenting with failing bioprosthetic surgical valves in need of a reoperation is to be expected. Redo surgery may pose a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an innovative, less-invasive treatment alternative for these patients. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the outcome of consecutive patients after a valve-in-valve TAVI [transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV)] as compared to a standard reoperation [surgical aortic valve redo-operation (SAV-in-SAV)] has not yet been performed. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after TAV-in-SAV and SAV-in-SAV in a single center setting.

METHODS

All SAV-in-SAV and TAV-in-SAV patients from January 2001 to October 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with previous mechanical or transcatheter valves, active endocarditis and concomitant cardiac procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, preoperative data, post-procedural complications, and 30-day mortality were collected from a designated database. Mean values ± SD were calculated for all continuous variables. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using the t-test for independent samples. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 50 patients (49%) underwent a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure, while 52 patients (51%) underwent redo-surgery. Patients in the TAV-in-SAV group were significantly older, had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE and exhibited a lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction than patients in the SAV-in-SAV group (78.1±6.7 vs. 66.2±13.1, P<0.001; 27.4±18.7 vs. 14.4±10, P<0.001; and 49.8±13.1 vs. 56.7±15.8, P=0.019 respectively). Postoperative pacemaker implantation and chest tube output were higher in the SAV-in-SAV group compared to the TAV-in-SAV group [11 (21%) vs. 3 (6%), P=0.042 and 0.9±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.9, P=0.047, respectively]. There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke or dialysis postoperatively. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups [TAV-in-SAV2 (4%) vs. SAV-in-SAV0, P=0.238]. Kaplan-Meier (KM) 1-year survival was significantly lower in the TAV-in-SAV group than in the SAV-in-SAV group (83% vs. 96%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation shows that both groups, irrespective of different baseline comorbidities, show very good early clinical outcomes. While redo surgery is still the standard of care, a subgroup of patients may profit from the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation overcoming hostile anatomy: Evolut R for the treatment of Mitroflow bioprosthesis dysfunction

Redo surgery is regarded as the first-line treatment option for patients presenting with prosthetic valve degeneration. However, many patients have concomitant co-morbidities and this option is associated with significant risk. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an alternative strategy depending on the bioprosthetic valve that is being treated. The Sorin Mitroflow bioprosthetic aortic valve has been regarded as a contraindication to valve-in-valve treatment due to the high risk of coronary obstruction. We here present the case of a patient with small peripheral vasculature who underwent successful transfemoral valve-in-valve implantation and subsequently discuss the challenges and technical aspects that require consideration.

Transcatheter CoreValve valve-in-valve implantation in a stentless porcine aortic valve for severe aortic regurgitation

Key Clinical Message

We describe the first valve-in-valve Corevalve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the St. Jude Toronto stentless porcine aortic valve in the United States, which enabled this 59-year-old patient with a history of bacterial endocarditis and aortic regurgitation to avoid heart transplant with complete resolution of his severe left ventricular dysfunction.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation: a systematic review of literature

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an alternative to open surgery in those deemed high risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of this emerging procedure. We have examined available literature to provide an overview of valve-in-valve implantation using transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in aortic, mitral, pulmonary, tricuspid positions.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Only 61 studies met full criteria and were included the review. This included 31 studies reporting transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation, mitral valve-in-valve implantation (13 studies), tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (12 studies), and pure native aortic valve regurgitation (nine studies). One of the limitations of this review is that most of the studies included were case reports, together with some case series.

CONCLUSION

Valve-in-valve implantation can be considered as an acceptable alternative to conventional open heart surgery for elderly high-risk surgical patients with bioprosthetic degeneration. Long-term follow-up of treated patients will be necessary to establish the true role of valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic degeneration. Patients should be evaluated on an individual basis until outcomes are proven in large cohort studies or randomised trials.

The freestyle aortic bioprosthesis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Medtronic Freestyle bioprosthesis (FSB) provides an alternative to other prostheses for both aortic valve and aortic root surgery. This paper is a systematic review of the post-operative outcomes in patients with aortic valve and/or aortic root disease following FSB implantation.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for primary analysis, prospective randomised studies comparing the FSB with an alternative aortic prosthesis were included. Additionally, case series that included data for at least 100 individual operated patients were used for secondary analysis.

RESULTS

Among three identified randomised studies, 199 FSB cases were compared with homografts, and stented and an alternative stentless bioprosthesis. The FSB showed comparable hospital mortality (4.5% vs. 5.3%) and eight-year actuarial survival (80±5.0% versus 77±6.0%) with the homograft (respectively) and comparable reduction in left ventricular mass index relative to other prosthesis types. Over 6000 individual patients were included in the selected 15 case series. Weighted mean operative mortality, neurological event rate and five-year actuarial survival was 5.2%, 5.5% and 77.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The FSB performed comparably against alternative prostheses regarding in-hospital mortality, long-term survival and reduction in left ventricular mass index. Included case series demonstrated robust post-operative outcomes in both the short and long term.

The current state and future directions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains the standard of care for most patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative option for patients with symptomatic AS who have a prohibitive risk profile for SAVR.

Early experience of implantation of the new CoreValve(®) Evolut(™) in degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. The PARTNER trial demonstrated equivalent 1-year survival rates between patients randomized to TAVI versus conventional surgery (Leon et al., N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597-1607), with sustained benefit up to 2 years (Makkar et al., NEJM 2012;366:1696-1704). Recently, the ADVANCE registry cited all-cause mortality rates of 4.5%, 12.8%, and 17.9% at 30-days, 6 months, and 1-year following TAVI in 1,015 high-risk patients (Linke, TCT 2012, 2012). In addition, TAVI was demonstrated to be a feasible treatment for severe native valve regurgitation in a series of 31 high-risk patients. The all-cause 30-day mortality rate was 6.4%, with a 30-day major stroke rate of 6.4%. At 1-year, the all-cause mortality rate was 12.5% (Roy et al., J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60(17S):B264). We report the successful transcatheter implantation of the new CoreValve(®) Evolut(™) in two patients with regurgitant aortic bioprostheses.