Transcatheter Replacement of Failed Bioprosthetic Valves

Impact of Different Valve-in-Valve Positions on Functional Results of the New Generation of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve

OBJECTIVES

 Very precise positioning of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) inside the degenerated SAV is a crucial factor for valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure to achieve optimal hemodynamic results. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the impact of implantation depth on functional results after ViV procedures in a standardized in vitro setting.

METHODS

 THV (SAPIEN 3 Ultra 23-mm size) and three SAV models (Magna Ease, Trifecta, and Hancock II-all 21-mm size) were tested at different circulatory conditions in five different positions of the THV (2-6 mm) inside the SAV. Mean pressure gradient (MPG), effective orifice area (EOA), geometric orifice area (GOAmax), and pinwheeling index (PWImean) were analyzed.

RESULTS

 EOA and MPG of the THV did not differ significantly regarding the position inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II (p > 0.05). However, EOA differed significantly, depending on the position of the THV inside Trifecta (2 vs. 5 mm; p = 0.021 and 2 vs. 6 mm; p < 0.001). The THV presented the highest EOA (2.047 cm2) and the lowest MPG (5.387 mm Hg) inside the Magna Ease, whereas the lowest EOA (1.335 cm2) and the highest MPG (11.876 mm Hg) were shown inside the Hancock II. Additionally, the highest GOAmax and the lowest PWImean of the THV were noticed inside the Magna Ease. The THV showed lower GOAmax and higher PWImean inside the Trifecta when placed in a deeper position.

CONCLUSION

 Deep implantation of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Trifecta correlates with impaired functional results. In contrast, the implantation position of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II did not have a significant effect on functional results.

Effects of different valve-in-valve positions on the hydrodynamic properties of transcatheter aortic valves

OBJECTIVE

With the rise of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures for high-risk patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves, precise positioning of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) within the surgical heart valve (SHV) is crucial for optimal functional outcomes. This study aims to explore the impact of implantation depth on functional outcomes post-ViV in a controlled in vitro setting.

METHODS

This study focused on the impact of valve positioning on fluid dynamics characteristics and subsequent ViV procedural outcomes. Rigorous in vitro experiments measured the structural parameters of the surgical valves, and based on these, the appropriate Taurus Elite valves were selected for pulse flow testing under simulated conditions of varying heart rates and cardiac outputs. Fluid dynamic evaluations were conducted on Taurus Elite THVs in sizes 21, 23, 26, 29 mm and SHVs from two brands: Hancock II (Medtronic, USA) and BalMedic (Balance Medical, China) across a range of diameters. In-depth analysis was performed at a cardiac output (CO) of 5 L/min and heart rate (HR) of 70 bpm, focusing on key metrics such as transvalvular pressure gradient (TVPG), effective orifice area (EOA), and total regurgitation fraction (TRF) at implantation depths of -2.5, 0, 2.5, and 5 mm to gain insights into the dynamic interaction between THV placement and hemodynamic performance. Anchoring force tests were also conducted for SHV-THV combinations at -2.5 and 0 mm depths to ensure safety of implantation.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in TVPG, EOA, and TRF across various SHV brands and sizes, emphasizing the importance of THV positioning. Specifically, Taurus Elite23 demonstrated superior TVPG performance at various depths compared to Taurus Elite21, indicating a better match with BalMedic19 and Hancock II21, especially at implantation depths ranging from -2.5 to 0 mm. Taurus Elite29 showed the lowest TVPG across all tested depths, making it the preferred choice for BalMedic25 and Hancock II27. These findings highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate THV model and determining the optimal implantation depth for different SHVs.

CONCLUSIONS

In different surgical valves, both the model and implantation depth of the interventional valve can affect its hemodynamic performance and valve opening-closing morphology. The recommended implantation of the interventional valve as shallowly as possible in this study has guiding significance in clinical valve-in-valve surgeries.

EchoNavigator®-guided transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve procedure to treat a degenerated radiolucent surgical bioprosthetic valve: a case report

Background

Radiolucent valves present unique clinical challenges since interventions often depend on multiple imaging modalities to perform such procedures successfully. EchoNavigator® is novel imaging software that specializes in real-time merging ultrasound and fluoroscopy images. It addresses these limitations by simultaneously integrating the benefits of two imaging modalities.

Case summary

An 85-year-old man with a history of bioprosthetic valve disease developed life-limiting symptoms. Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) showed severe bioprosthetic mitral stenosis, prompting plans to perform a transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMVIV) replacement. Using EchoNavigator® to mark the annulus on TEE, we were able to successfully deploy the valve using fluoroscopy to guide the successful deployment of the valve.

Discussion

The treatment of degenerated valves using transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures has increased in frequency recently due to increasing age and comorbidities associated with patients. Identifying the true annulus plays an integral role in ensuring the valve is deployed in the ideal location. However, the radiolucent nature of the valve prohibits performing a TMVIV under conventional methods. Utilization of fusion imaging, such as EchoNavigator®, provides an opportunity to visualize such valves using the strengths of both modalities simultaneously, simplifying such procedures. To our knowledge, this is the first report of using such fusion technology to facilitate the placement of a bioprosthesis within a failed radiolucent surgical valve. Application of such technologies can help improve the performance and outcomes of such procedures by allowing operators to use the advantages of both imaging for improved outcomes.

Valve type and post-dilation impact on transprosthetic gradients in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedure

Aims

Valve-in-Valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is an appealing treatment option for patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves. However, higher post-procedural transprosthetic gradients are more common after ViV-TAVR than after TAVR for native aortic valve stenosis. We sought to evaluate the impact of type of implanted valve and balloon post-dilation on echocardiographic results and mortality in ViV-TAVR patients.

Methods and results

One hundred and eleven consecutive patients were enrolled. A balloon-expandable valve, a self-expandable valve without balloon post-dilation, and a self-expandable valve with balloon post-dilation were performed in 35 (Group 1), 39 (Group 2), and 37 (Group 3) patients, respectively. All patients underwent comprehensive transthoracic echocardiography at baseline, discharge, and 6-12 months follow-up. Successful ViV-TAVR was performed in 110 patients (99%). Baseline transprosthetic gradients, left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure were similar among groups. All groups experienced a significant reduction in post-procedural gradients at discharge and during the 6-12 months follow-up compared with baseline. At discharge, the lowest mean gradient was observed in Group 3 (12 ± 7 mmHg) compared with both Group 1 (20 ± 9 mmHg) and Group 2 (17 ± 8 mmHg, P = 0.001). This result was confirmed at 6-12 months follow-up (P = 0.012). Similar 5-year all-cause mortality was observed among groups (34%, 36%, 14%, respectively, P = 0.056).

Conclusion

In patients with failed surgical aortic prosthesis, ViV-TAVR is an effective treatment option associated with sustained improved haemodynamics regardless of transcatheter valve type and use of balloon post-dilation. However, self-expandable valves with balloon post-dilation showed lower transprosthetic gradients.

A multimodal approach to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

The valve-in-valve transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation (VIV-TAVI) represents an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerated aortic bio-prostheses, and the occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after VIV-TAVI might affect its clinical efficacy. This study aimed to test a multimodal imaging approach to predict PPM risk during the TAVI planning phase and assess its clinical predictivity in VIV-TAVI procedures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing VIV-TAVI procedures at our Institution over 6 years were screened and those treated by self-expandable supra-annular valves were selected. The effective orifice area (EOA) was calculated with a hybrid Gorlin equation combining echocardiographic data with invasive hemodynamic assessment. Severe PPM was defined according to such original multimodality assessment as EOAi≤0.65 cm2/m2 (if BMI < 30 kg/m2) or < 0.55 cm2/m2 (if BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and valve-related re-hospitalization during the clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 40 VIV-TAVI was included in the analysis. According to the pre-specified multimodal imaging modality assessment, 18 patients (45.0 %) had severe PPM. Among all baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics, estimated glomerular filtration rate before VIV-TAVI (OR 0.872, 95%CI[0.765-0.994],p = 0.040), the echocardiographic pre-procedural ≥moderate AR (OR 0.023, 95%CI[0.001-0.964],p = 0.048), the MSCT-derived effective internal area (OR 0.958, 95%CI[0.919-0.999],p = 0.046) and the implantation depth (OR 2.050, 95%CI[1.028-4.086],p = 0.041) resulted as independent predictors of severe PPM at multivariable logistic analysis. At a mean follow-up of 630 days, patients with severe PPM showed a higher incidence of the primary endpoint (9.1%vs.44.4 %;p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In VIV-TAVI using self-expandable supra-annular valves, a multimodal imaging approach might improve clinical outcome predicting severe PPM occurrence.

Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have not been extensively studied in valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared outcomes of supra-annular SE and BE THVs used for ViV-TAVR through a retrospective analysis of institutional data (2013 to 2023) including all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (TAVR in previous surgical aortic valve replacement). Unmatched and propensity-matched (1:1) comparisons of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were undertaken in SE and BE THVs along with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A total of 315 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR were included, of whom 73% received an SE THV. Median age was 77 years, and women comprised 42.5% of the population. Propensity-score matching (1:1) yielded 81 matched pairs. Implanted aortic valve size was comparable in the groups (23 mm [23 to 26] vs 23 mm [23 to 26], p = 0.457). At 30 days after ViV-TAVR, the SE group had a lower mean aortic valve gradient (14 mm Hg [11 to 18] vs 17.5 mm Hg [13 to 25], p = 0.007). A greater number of patients with BE THV had severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (16% vs 6.2%, p = 0.04). At 1-year follow-up, the SE THV group had a lower aortic valve gradient (14.0 mm Hg [9.6 to 19] vs 17 mm Hg [13 to 25], p = 0.04) than that of the BE THV group; 30-day mortality was 2.7%, whereas 1-year mortality was 7.5% and comparable in the groups. Survival and stroke incidence were similar in the groups up to 5 years. In conclusion, SE and BE THVs had comparable survival after ViV-TAVR. The higher residual aortic valve gradients in BE THVs are likely due to valve design and warrant long-term evaluation for potential structural valve degeneration.

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.

Impact of Elevated Gradients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

Elevated aortic valve gradients are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic valve replacement bioprostheses, but their clinical impact is uncertain.

METHODS

A total of 12 122 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation-in-surgical aortic valve replacement from November 2011 to December 2019 in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transvalvular Therapeutics Registry were included. The primary outcome was a composite of 1-year all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or valve reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 1-year all-cause mortality, readmission, and change from baseline 12-question self-administered Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary Score. Due to nonlinearity observed with restricted cubic splines analysis, a Cox regression analysis with aortic valve mean gradient modeled as a spline-continuous variable (with 20 mm Hg as a cutoff) was used to study the 1-year composite outcome and mortality.

RESULTS

The composite outcome occurred most frequently in patients with aortic valve mean gradient ≥30 and <10 mm Hg, as compared with those with 10 to 20 and 20 to 30 mm Hg ranges (unadjusted rates, 13.9%, 12.1%, 7.5%, and 6.5%, respectively; P=0.002). When the mean aortic valve gradient was ≥20 mm Hg, higher gradients were associated with greater risk of the 1-year composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [1.02-1.03] per mm Hg; P<0.001) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [1.00-1.03] per mm Hg; P=0.007). Whereas when the mean aortic valve gradient was <20 mm Hg, higher gradients were not significantly associated with the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99 [0.98-1.003] per mm Hg; P=0.12) but were associated with lower 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98 [0.97-0.99] per mm Hg; P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between postprocedural aortic valve mean gradient after transcatheter aortic valve implantation-in-surgical aortic valve replacement and clinical outcomes is complex and nonlinear, with relatively greater adverse events occurring at low and high gradient extremes. Further study of factors mediating the relationship between postprocedural gradients and clinical outcomes, including low-flow states, is necessary.

Deformation in transcatheter heart valves: Clinical implications and considerations

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a preferred treatment modality for aortic stenosis, marking a significant advancement in cardiac interventions. Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have also received approval for treating failed bioprosthetic valves and rings across aortic, mitral, tricuspid, and pulmonic positions. Unlike surgically implanted valves, which are sewn into the annulus, THVs are anchored through relative oversizing. Although THVs are designed to function optimally in a fully expanded state, they exhibit a certain degree of tolerance to underexpansion. However, significant deformation beyond this tolerance can adversely affect the valve's hemodynamics and durability, ultimately impacting patient outcomes. Such post-implantation deviations from the valve's intended three-dimensional design are influenced by a variety of physiological and anatomical factors unique to each patient and procedure, leading to underexpansion, eccentric expansion, and vertical deformation. These deformation patterns increase leaflet stress and strain, potentially causing fatigue and damage. This review article delves into the extent of THV deformation, its impact on leaflet function, hypoattenuating leaflet thickening, and structural valve degeneration. It provides an in-depth analysis of deformation specifics in different procedural contexts, including TAVR in native aortic stenosis, aortic and mitral valve-in-valve procedures, and redo-TAVR. Additionally, the review discusses strategies to mitigate THV deformation during the procedure, offering insights into potential solutions to these challenges.

Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]).

AIMS

We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.

Comparison of a novel self-expanding transcatheter heart valve with two established devices for treatment of degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses

AIMS

This study was performed to compare haemodynamic properties of a novel transcatheter heart valve (THV) with two established valve technologies for treatment of failing surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves (SAV). The ALLEGRA THV has been recently described with a proven safety and performance profile.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study was designed as a retrospective, single-centre study investigating 112 patients (77.7 ± 7.1 years, 53.8% female, STS score 6.8 ± 5.8% and logEuroSCORE I 27.4 ± 16.1%) with failing SAV. Patients were treated with the ALLEGRA THV (NVT, n = 24), the CoreValve/EvolutR (MTD, n = 64) or the Edwards Sapien/Sapien XT/Sapien 3 (EDW, n = 24). Adverse events, haemodynamic outcomes and patient safety were analysed according to VARC-3 definitions. Overall procedural success was high (94.6%), even though 58.9% of the treated SAV were classified as small (true inner diameter < 21 mm). After treatment, the mean pressure gradient was significantly reduced (baseline: 33.7 ± 16.5 mmHg, discharge: 18.0 ± 7.1 mmHg), with a corresponding increase in effective orifice area (EOA). The complication rates did not differ in between groups. There was a trend to lower mean transvalvular gradients after implantation of self-expanding THV with supra-annular valve function, despite a higher frequency of smaller SAVs in the NVT and MTD group. Additionally, comparison between NVT and MTD revealed statistically lower transvalvular gradients (NVT 14.9 ± 5.0 mmHg, MTD 18.7 ± 7.5 mmHg, p = 0.0295) in a subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve (ViV) treatment of failing SAV with supra-annular design like the ALLEGRA THV resulted in favourable haemodynamic outcomes with similar low clinical event rates and may therefore be an interesting alternative for VIV TAVI.

Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Valve-in-Valve with a Supra-Annular Valve

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve [ViV]) has become an established procedure. Elevated gradients and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) have previously been reported in mixed TAVR cohorts. We analyzed our single-center experience using the third-generation self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R prosthesis, with an emphasis on the incidence and outcomes of PPM.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from our TAVR database. Intraprocedural and intrahospital outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients underwent ViV-TAVR with the Evolut R prosthesis. Mean age was 75.5 ± 9.5 years, 64% were males. The mean log EuroScore was 21.6 ± 15.7%. The mean time between initial surgical valve implantation and ViV-TAVR was 8.8 ± 3.2 years. The mean true internal diameter of the implanted surgical valves was 20.9 ± 2.2 mm. Post-AVR, 60% had no PPM, 34% had moderate PPM, and 6% had severe PPM. After ViV-TAVR, 33% had no PPM, 29% had moderate, and 39% had severe PPM. After implantation, the mean transvalvular gradient was reduced significantly from 36.4 ± 15.2 to 15.5 ± 9.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation after ViV-TAVR. No conversion to surgery was necessary. Estimated Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 year for all patients was 87.4%. One-year survival showed no significant difference according to post-ViV PPM groups (p = 0.356).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVR using a supra-annular valve resulted in low procedural and in-hospital complication rates. However, moderate or severe PPM was common, with no influence on short-term survival. PPM may not be a suitable factor to predict survival after ViV-TAVR.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Mitral Valve-in-Valve Positioning and Asymmetric Deployment: The VIVID Registry

BACKGROUND

Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with suboptimal hemodynamics and rare left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine whether device position and asymmetry are associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) mitral ViV included in the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) Registry were studied. Clinical endpoints are reported according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Residual mitral valve stenosis was defined as mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Depth of implantation (percentage of transcatheter heart valve [THV] atrial to the bioprosthesis ring) and asymmetry (ratio of 2 measures of THV height) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients meeting the criteria for optimal core lab evaluation were studied (age 74 ± 11.6 years; 61.9% female; STS score = 8.3 ± 7.1). Mean asymmetry was 6.2% ± 4.4%. Mean depth of implantation was 19.0% ± 10.3% atrial. Residual stenosis was common (50%; mean gradient 5.0 ± 2.6 mm Hg). LVOT obstruction occurred in 7 cases (3.2%). Implantation depth was not a predictor of residual stenosis (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.55]; P = 0.184), but more atrial implantation was protective against LVOT obstruction (0.7% vs 7.1%; P = 0.009; per 10% atrial, OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.98]; P = 0.044). Asymmetry was found to be an independent predictor of residual stenosis (per 10% increase, OR: 2.30 [95% CI: 1.10-4.82]; P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Valve stenosis is common after mitral ViV. Asymmetry was associated with residual stenosis. Depth of implantation on its own was not associated with residual stenosis but was associated with LVOT obstruction. Technical considerations to reduce postdeployment THV asymmetry should be considered.

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.

Coronary Obstruction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the Spanish TAVI Registry

BACKGROUND

Coronary obstruction (CO) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a life-threatening complication, scarcely studied.

OBJECTIVES

The authors analyzed the incidence of CO after TAVR, presentation, management, and in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes in a large series of patients undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

Patients from the Spanish TAVI (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry who presented with CO in the procedure, during hospitalization or at follow-up were included. Computed tomography (CT) risk factors were assessed. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were analyzed and compared with patients without CO using logistic regression models in the overall cohort and in a propensity score-matched cohort.

RESULTS

Of 13,675 patients undergoing TAVR, 115 (0.80%) presented with a CO, mainly during the procedure (83.5%). The incidence of CO was stable throughout the study period (2009-2021), with a median annual rate of 0.8% (range 0.3%-1.3%). Preimplantation CT scans were available in 105 patients (91.3%). A combination of at least 2 CT-based risk factors was less frequent in native than in valve-in-valve patients (31.7% vs 78.3%; P < 0.01). Percutaneous coronary intervention was the treatment of choice in 100 patients (86.9%), with a technical success of 78.0%. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were higher in CO patients than in those without CO (37.4% vs 4.1%, 38.3% vs 4.3%, and 39.1% vs 9.1%, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, nationwide TAVR registry, CO was a rare, but often fatal, complication that did not decrease over time. The lack of identifiable predisposing factors in a subset of patients and the frequently challenging treatment when established may partly explain these findings.

Deformation of Transcatheter Heart Valve Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Implications for Hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be associated with adverse hemodynamics, which might affect clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the extent and predictors of transcatheter heart valve (THV) deformity in ViV TAVR and the relation to postprocedural hemodynamics.

METHODS

We examined 53 patients who underwent ViV TAVR in surgical heart valves with self-expanding Evolut prostheses. THV deformation was examined using cardiac computed tomography prospectively performed 30 days after ViV TAVR, and correlated with 30-day echocardiographic hemodynamic data.

RESULTS

Near complete expansion of the functional portion of the implanted ViV prostheses (ie, >90%) was observed in 16 (30.2%) patients. Factors related to greater expansion of the functional portion and consequently larger neosinus volume were absence of polymer surgical frame, higher implantation and use of balloon aortic valvuloplasty or bioprosthetic valve fracture during the procedure (all P < 0.05). Underexpansion of the functional portion, but not the valve inflow frame, was closely associated with mean gradient and effective orifice area at 30 days on echocardiography, with and without adjustment for the sizes of the THV and surgical heart valve.

CONCLUSIONS

Underexpansion of the functional portion of THV prostheses is common during ViV TAVR, occurs more frequently with deep implantation and the presence of a polymer surgical stent frame, and is associated with worse postprocedural hemodynamics. Procedural techniques, such as higher implantation and balloon postdilatation, may be used to help overcome problems with THV underexpansion and improve clinical outcomes.

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.

Multicenter experience with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with primary, native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

Comparison of performance of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves

Objective

To evaluate the flow dynamics of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves pertaining to turbulence and pressure recovery. Transcatheter aortic valves are characterized by different designs that have different valve performance and outcomes.

Methods

Assessment of transcatheter aortic valves was performed using self-expanding devices (26-mm Evolut [Medtronic], 23-mm Allegra [New Valve Technologies], and small Acurate neo [Boston Scientific]) and a balloon-expandable device (23-mm Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences]). Particle image velocimetry assessed the flow downstream. A Millar catheter was used for pressure recovery calculation. Velocity, Reynolds shear stresses, viscous shear stress, and pressure gradients were calculated.

Results

The maximal velocity at peak systole obtained with the Evolut R, Sapien 3, Acurate neo, and Allegra was 2.12 ± 0.19 m/sec, 2.41 ± 0.06 m/sec, 2.99 ± 0.10 m/sec, and 2.45 ± 0.08 m/sec, respectively (P < .001). Leaflet oscillations with the flow were clear with the Evolut R and Acurate neo. The Allegra shows the minimal range of Reynolds shear stress magnitudes (up to 320 Pa), and Sapien 3 the maximal (up to 650 Pa). The Evolut had the smallest viscous shear stress magnitude range (up to 3.5 Pa), and the Sapien 3 the largest (up to 6.2 Pa). The largest pressure drop at the vena contracta occurred with the Acurate neo transcatheter aortic valve with a pressure gradient of 13.96 ± 1.35 mm Hg. In the recovery zone, the smallest pressure gradient was obtained with the Allegra (3.32 ± 0.94 mm Hg).

Conclusions

Flow dynamics downstream of different transcatheter aortic valves vary significantly depending on the valve type, despite not having a general trend depending on whether or not valves are self-expanding or balloon-expandable. Deployment design did not have an influence on flow dynamics.

Transcatether Aortic Valve Implantation to Treat Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: Focus on the Specific Procedural Challenges

Actually transcatheter aortic valve implantation within failed surgically bioprosthetic valves (VIV-TAVI) is an established procedure in patients at high risk for repeat surgical aortic valve intervention. Although less invasive than surgical reintervention, VIV-TAVI procedure offers potential challenges, such as higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction. Thus, optimal procedural planning plays an important role to minimize the risk of procedure complications. In this review, we describe the key points of a VIV-TAVI procedure to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of procedure complications.

A Preliminary Study on the Usage of a Data-Driven Probabilistic Approach to Predict Valve Performance Under Different Physiological Conditions

Predicting potential complications after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a crucial task that would help pre-planning procedures. The goal of this work is to generate data-driven models based on logistic regression, where the probability of developing transvalvular pressure gradient (DP) that exceeds 20 mmHg under different physiological conditions can be estimated without running extensive experimental or computational methods. The hemodynamic assessment of a 26 mm SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve and a 25 mm Magna Ease surgical aortic valve was performed under pulsatile conditions of a large range of systolic blood pressures (SBP; 100-180 mmHg), diastolic blood pressures (DBP; 40-100 mmHg), and heart rates of 60, 90 and 120 bpm. Logistic regression modeling was used to generate a predictive model for the probability of having a DP > 20 mmHg for both valves under different conditions. Experiments on different pressure conditions were conducted to compare the probabilities of the generated model and those obtained experimentally. To test the accuracy of the predictive model, the receiver operation characteristics curves were generated, and the areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. The probabilistic predictive model of DP > 20 mmHg was generated with parameters specific to each valve. The AUC obtained for the SAPIEN 3 DP model was 0.9465 and that for Magna Ease was 0.9054 indicating a high model accuracy. Agreement between the DP probabilities obtained between experiments and predictive model was found. This model is a first step towards developing a larger statistical and data-driven model that can inform on certain valves reliability during AVR pre-procedural planning.

Haemodynamic differences between two generations of a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate early haemodynamic and clinical performance of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3 Ultra) transcatheter heart valve (THV) system in comparison to its precursor, the SAPIEN 3 (S3). Previous studies have indicated potential haemodynamic differences between the S3 Ultra and S3. Such differences may impact clinical outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

Postprocedural haemodynamic performance and 30-day clinical outcome were compared in patients who underwent TAVI receiving either the S3 or the new S3 Ultra prostheses. Multivariable analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to identify factors associated with higher mean transvalvular gradients.

RESULTS

We included 697 patients (S3 Ultra: n=314, S3: n=383) from the multicentre RhineHeart TAVI Registry. Patients receiving the S3 Ultra prosthesis showed significantly higher postprocedural mean transvalvular gradients (14.2±4.8 vs 10.2±4.4 mm Hg; p<0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analyses and additional PSM revealed the use of the S3 Ultra to be associated with higher postprocedural mean transvalvular gradients (p<0.01). 30-day clinical outcomes, such as mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation and vascular complications were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The new S3 Ultra THV was associated with a higher postprocedural mean transvalvular gradient compared with the S3 system, while there was no difference in mortality or adverse clinical outcomes at 30 days. These echocardiographic differences will require long-term studies to assess the clinical relevance of this finding.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis: A systematic review

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve in valve (Aviv) replacement has been shown to be an effective therapeutic option in patients with failed aortic bioprosthetic valves. This review intended to evaluate contemporary 1-year outcomes of Aviv in recent studies.

Methods:

A systematic review on outcomes of Aviv was performed using the best available evidence from studies obtained using a MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS search. Endpoints of interest were survival, coronary artery obstruction, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), stroke, pacemaker implantation, and structural valve deterioration.

Results:

A total of 3339 patients from 23 studies were included. Mean age was 68–80 years, 20%–50% were female, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.7 to 31.1. Thirty-day all-cause mortality ranged from 2% to 8%, and 1-year all-cause mortality ranged from 8% to 33%. Coronary artery obstruction risk after Aviv ranged from 0.6% to 4%. One-year stroke ranged from 2% to 8%. Moderate-severe PPM occurred in 11%–58%, and pacemaker rate at 1 year ranged from 5% to 12%.

Conclusion:

Transcatheter aortic ViV has emerged as an effective therapeutic option to treat patients with failed bioprostheses. The acceptable complication rate and favorable 1-year outcomes make Aviv an appropriate alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

Repeat transcatheter aortic valve implantation and implications for transcatheter heart valve performance: insights from bench testing

BACKGROUND

THV implantation within failed surgical valves is well established. However, the implications of THV implantation within failed THVs are poorly understood.

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the impact of different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs and implant positioning strategies on hydrodynamic performance after redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

THVs of varying design (SAPIEN 3, Evolut PRO, ACURATE neo, ALLEGRA, and Portico) and size were implanted inside SAPIEN XT and Evolut R THVs. Hydrodynamic function as per International Organization for Standardization (ISO) specifications was evaluated using a pulse duplicator, and multi-modality imaging was performed.

RESULTS

The majority of tested THV-in-THV combinations resulted in stable anchoring of the new implant. However, some combinations resulted in unstable anchoring with the potential for dislodgement or embolisation. Hydrodynamic function was favourable for all tested THV designs implanted in the intra-annular SAPIEN XT THV. SAPIEN 3 implantation within an Evolut THV with supra-annular leaflets must be appropriately sized to ensure adequate anchoring. Avoidance of an intra-annular deployment mitigated leaflet overhang of the Evolut leaflets and optimised hydrodynamic performance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that most THV designs and implantation strategies can result in favourable hydrodynamic performance following redo TAVI. Whether the leaflets of a failed THV are intra- or supra-annular may have important implications for the positioning of a redo-THV implant. Certain THV designs or implantation positions may be more desirable when performing redo TAVI.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: a practical guide

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) is currently indicated for the treatment of failed surgical tissue valves in patients determined to be at high surgical risk for re-operative surgical valve replacement. VIV TAVR, however, often results in suboptimal expansion of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and can result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), particularly in small surgical valves. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) can facilitate VIV TAVR by optimally expanding the THV and reducing the residual transvalvular gradient by utilizing a high-pressure inflation with a non-compliant balloon to either fracture or stretch the surgical valve ring, respectively. This article, along with the supplemental video, will provide patient selection, procedural planning and technical insights for performing BVF and BVR.

Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already received the green light for high-, intermediate- and low-risk profiles and is an alternative for all patients regardless of age. It is clear that there has been a push towards the use of TAVR in younger and younger patients (<65 years), which has never been formally tested in randomized controlled trials but seems inevitable as TAVR technology makes steady progress. Lifetime management as a concept will set the tone in the field of the structural heart. Some subjects in this scenario arise, including the importance of optimized prosthetic hemodynamics for lifetime care; surgical procedures in the aortic root; management of structural valve degeneration with valve-in-valve procedures (TAVR-in-surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and TAVR-in-TAVR) and redo SAVR; commissural alignment and cusp overlap for TAVR; the rise in the number of surgical procedures for TAVR explantation; and the renewed interest in the Ross procedure. This article reviews all these issues which will become commonplace during heart team meetings and preoperative conversations with patients in the coming years.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic valves

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves (valve-in-valve TAVI) has become an established procedure, currently approved for patients deemed at high risk for repeat aortic valve intervention. Although less invasive than surgical reoperation, challenges of valve-in-valve treatment include higher rates of malposition, prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction. Thus, optimal patient selection and preprocedural planning is of the utmost importance to minimise the risk of these complications. In this review article we provide a fully illustrated overview of the most significant periprocedural operative considerations for valve-in-valve TAVI.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expandable Supra-Annular Valves for Degenerated Surgical Bioprostheses: Insights From Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self‐expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure.

Methods and Results

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 1‐year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons‐American College of Cardiology‐Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty‐day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types (P=0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all‐cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all‐cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all‐cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all‐cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%).

Conclusions

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self‐expandable supra‐annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Propensity matched long-term analysis of mechanical versus stentless aortic valve replacement in the younger patient

OBJECTIVES

The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in younger patients remains controversial. Stentless AVR was introduced 3 decades ago, with the aim of better haemodynamics and durability than stented xenografts. The objective of this analysis was to compare the long-term outcomes to mechanical prostheses in younger patients (age ≤60 years).

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent AVR due to aortic valve stenosis and/or insufficiency between 1993 and 2002 were identified. After the exclusion of patients with congenital heart defects, aortic dissections and Ross-procedures, 158 patients with stentless valves and 226 patients with bi-leaflet mechanical valves were finally included in this analysis. Sixty-six patient pairs could be included in a propensity matched analysis. Mortality and morbidity including stroke, bleeding, endocarditis and reoperation were analysed.

RESULTS

Group baseline characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly after propensity matching. Hospital mortality was 0.0% in the stentless and 1.5% in the mechanical group. Total patient years/median follow-up was 2029.1/15.4 years (completeness: 100.0%, range: 0-25 years). After 20 years, actuarial survival was 47.0 ± 6.4% in the stentless and 53.3 ± 6.6% in mechanical group (P = 0.69). Bleeding, endocarditis and stroke occurred rarely and did not differ significantly between groups. After 20 years, actuarial overall freedom-from-reoperation was 45.1 ± 8.2% in the stentless group and 90.4 ± 4.1% in the mechanical group (P < 0.001). Hospital mortality while reoperation was 7.4% in the stentless group and 0% in the mechanical group (P = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term morbidity and mortality of stentless and mechanical aortic valves were statistically not different besides a significantly higher reoperation rate after stentless AVR combined with a probably higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Thus, mechanical AVR should remain the procedure of choice in younger patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated aortic valves: Experience with a new supra-annular device. The Spanish Allegra valve-in-valve (SAVIV) registry

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the results of valve-in-valve procedures performed with the Allegra device.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation to treat degenerated biological aortic valves (valve-in-valve) is an established procedure in most catheterization laboratories, but the results are poorer than procedures done in native aortic stenosis. The Allegra device (Biosensors, Morges, Switzerland) has an excellent design to treat these patients.

METHODS

All patients with severely degenerated biological aortic valve treated with the Allegra device in centers from Spain until December 2020 were included (n = 29). Hemodynamic results and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated. The predominant hemodynamic failure was stenosis in 15, regurgitation in 11, and a combination of both in 3 cases. Time from aortic valve replacement to valve-in-valve procedure was 8.4 ± 3.9 years (range 3.3-22.1).

RESULTS

After the procedure, maximum and mean trans-valvular gradients were 17.4 ± 12.3 and 8.4 ± 6.1 mmHg, respectively. Device success was obtained in 28 patients (96.6%). In one patient with a degenerated 19 mm prosthetic valve, mean gradient after the procedure was 22 mmHg. No patients had a para-valvular leak grade >1. There were no deaths during the hospitalization or at 30 days and one patient suffered a stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The Allegra trans-catheter aortic valve offers optimal hemodynamic results in patients with severely degenerated biological aortic valve.

Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective area of a prosthetic valve inserted into a patient is inferior to that of a normal human valve; the hemodynamic consequence of a valve too small compared with the size of the patient's body is the generation of higher than expected transprosthetic gradients. Despite evidence of increased risk of short- and long-term mortality and of structural valve degeneration in patients with PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement, its clinical impact in patients subject to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is yet unclear. We aim to review and update on the definition and incidence of PPM after TAVI, and its prognostic implications in the overall population and in higher-risk subgroups, such as small aortic annuli or valve-in-valve procedures. Last, we will focus on the armamentarium available in order to reduce risk of PPM when planning a TAVI procedure.

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: VIVID Registry

BACKGROUND

Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains one of the main drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but scarce data exist on PPI after valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR, particularly with the use of newer-generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs).

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, factors associated with, and clinical impact of PPI in a large series of ViV-TAVR procedures.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the multicenter VIVID Registry and included the main baseline and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and late (median follow-up: 13 months [interquartile range: 3 to 41 months]) outcomes analyzed according to the need of periprocedural PPI. All THVs except CoreValve, Cribier-Edwards, Sapien, and Sapien XT were considered to be new-generation THVs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,987 patients without prior PPI undergoing ViV-TAVR from 2007 to 2020 were included. Of these, 128 patients (6.4%) had PPI after TAVR, with a significant decrease in the incidence of PPI with the use of new-generation THVs (4.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.017), mainly related to a reduced PPI rate with the Evolut R/Pro versus CoreValve (3.7% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in PPI rates between newer-generation balloon- and self-expanding THVs (6.1% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.18). In the multivariable analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05 for each increase of 1 year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.07; p = 0.001), larger THV size (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.20; p = 0.02), and previous right bundle branch block (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.17; p = 0.05) were associated with an increased risk of PPI. There were no differences in 30-day mortality between the PPI (4.7%) and no-PPI (2.7%) groups (p = 0.19), but PPI patients exhibited a trend toward higher mortality risk at follow-up (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.91; p = 0.04; p = 0.08 after adjusting for age differences between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary large series of ViV-TAVR patients, the rate of periprocedural PPI was relatively low, and its incidence decreased with the use of new-generation THV systems. PPI following ViV-TAVR was associated with a trend toward increased mortality at follow-up.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement

Background:

Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR.

Methods:

Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate.

Results:

A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76–996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510–1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium–defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74–12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88–21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement.

Conclusions:

Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with fracturing of a failed small surgical aortic bioprosthesis: a case report

Background

Failure of a small surgical aortic bioprosthesis represents a challenging clinical scenario with valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) often resulting in patient-prosthesis mismatch. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) performed as a part of the ViV TAVI has recently emerged as an alternative approach with certain types of surgical bioprostheses.

Case summary

An 81-year-old woman with a history of three surgical aortic valve procedures presented with heart failure. Aortic bioprosthesis degeneration with severe stenosis and moderate regurgitation was found. The patient was deemed a high-risk surgical candidate and the heart team decided that ViV TAVI was the preferred treatment option. Due to the very small 19 mm stented surgical aortic bioprosthesis Mitroflow 19 mm (Sorin Group, Italy) we decided to perform BVF as a part of ViV TAVI to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Since this was the first BVF procedure in our centre, an ex vivo BVF of the same kind of bioprosthetic valve was performed first. Subsequently, successful BVF with implantation of Evolut R 23 mm (Medtronic, USA) self-expandable transcatheter valve was performed. Excellent haemodynamic result was achieved and no periprocedural complications were present. The patient had an immediate major improvement in clinical status and remains asymptomatic after 6 months.

Discussion

Bioprosthetic valve fracture together with ViV TAVI is a safe and effective emerging technique for treatment of small surgical aortic bioprosthesis failure. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows marked oversizing of implanted self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves, leading to excellent haemodynamic and clinical results. An ex vivo BVF can serve as an important preparatory step when introducing the new method.

Unique technical challenges in patients undergoing TAVR for failed aortic homografts

OBJECTIVE

Surgical reoperation for aortic homograft structural valve degeneration (SVD) is a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for homograft-SVD is an alternative to reoperation, but descriptions of implantation techniques are limited. This study compares outcome in patients undergoing into two groups by the type of previously implanted aortic valve prosthesis: TAVR for failed aortic homografts (TAVR-H) or for stented aortic bioprostheses (TAVR-BP).

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, TAVR was performed in 41 patients with SVD. Thirty-three patients in the TAVR-BP group (six for SVD of valved conduits), and eight patients in the TAVR-H group. The Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria were used for outcome reporting purposes.

RESULTS

The patients with TAVR-BP had predominant prosthetic stenosis (94%, p = .002), whereas TAVR-H individuals presented mostly with regurgitation (88%, p = <.001). Patients with TAVR-H received: Sapien-3 (6), Sapien-XT (1), and CoreValve (1) devices. Low, 40% ventricular fixation in relation to homograft annulus was attempted to anchor the prosthesis on the homograft suture-line. One patient with TAVR-BP experienced intraoperative distal prosthesis migration and Type-B aortic dissection, and two patients in the TAVR-H group had late postoperative proximal device migration. In both groups, there was zero 30-day mortality, stroke, or pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR for failing aortic homografts may be a feasible and safe alternative to high-risk surgical reintervention. Precise, 40%-ventricular device positioning appears crucial for prevention of late paravalvular leak/late prosthesis migration and minimizing the risk of repeat surgical intervention.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses: are patients with small surgical bioprostheses at higher risk for unfavourable mid-term outcomes?

Background

To examine outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) according to the inner diameter (ID) of the degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis.

Methods

We analyzed survival, stroke, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, paravalvular (PV) leakage, acute kidney injury and vascular complications in fifty-nine patients during a ten-year period. Patients were stratified according to the ID of the indwelling degenerated biological aortic valve (true ID ≤ and >20 mm). Differences in post-procedural transvalvular gradients and hospital re-admissions were analyzed.

Results

The median age of the small diameter group and large diameter group was eighty-one and eighty years, respectively. Median logistic EuroSCORE I was 23.9% and 26.2% and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 5.7% and 7.8% for the small and large groups, respectively. Survival, stroke, PPM implantation, PV leakage, acute kidney injury and vascular complications did not reach any statistically significant difference between both groups. Postprocedural transvalvular gradients differed significantly according to the true ID of the degenerated bioprosthetic valve and consequently of the respective TAVI valve. There was a significant difference with regard to hospital readmissions according to the true ID.

Conclusions

TAVI ViV implantation for aortic bioprostheses with small true IDs of ≤20 mm is associated with comparable mid-term mortality and periprocedural stroke rate compared to implantation into larger bioprostheses. However, the periprocedural and mid-term transvalvular gradients, as well as hospital re-admission rates are significantly higher in the small diameter group.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves

Aims

Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV.

Methods and results

A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID &gt; 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)].

Conclusions

The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation in a dysfunctional Trifecta® bioprothesis after high-pressure balloon fracturing

A percutaneous pulmonary valve-in-valve (PPVIV) implantation in small surgical tissue valves may be limited due to the valve's initial diameter. Fracturing of the valve's integrity by high-pressure balloons may enhance the diameter and facilitate subsequent PPVIV with a large valve. To the best of our knowledge, the Trifecta® valve seemed not to be accessible for fracturing. We report a case of successful 19-mm Trifecta valve fracturing, followed by PPVIV using a 26-mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve in pulmonary position. By repetitively using a high-pressure balloon 5 mm larger than the labeled valve size, we were able to fracture the valve's integrity and implant a 26-mm valve thereafter. Therefore, Trifecta valve appears to be suitable for valve ring fracturing and subsequent PPVIV in certain patients.

Impact of implant depth on hydrodynamic function of the ALLEGRA bioprosthesis in valve-in-valve interventions

AIMS

We aimed to assess the impact of implant depth on hydrodynamic function following valve-in-valve (VIV) intervention using the ALLEGRA transcatheter heart valve (THV) in three different surgical valve designs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Multiple implantation depths (+2 mm, -2 mm and -6 mm) were tested using a 23 mm ALLEGRA THV for VIV intervention in 19 mm, 21 mm, 23 mm, and 25 mm Epic, Mitroflow and Magna Ease bioprosthetic valves. Multimodality imaging and hydrodynamic evaluation was performed at each implantation depth. The 23 mm ALLEGRA valve had gradients <20 mmHg in the Mitroflow and Epic valves sized ≥21 mm, and in all sizes of the Magna Ease valve. Gradients did not increase significantly at lower implantation depths. The 19 mm Epic (+2 mm: 20.1±0.6 mmHg, -2 mm: 18.8±0.5 mmHg, -6 mm: 22.8±0.3 mmHg) and 19 mm Mitroflow (+2 mm: 24.1±0.2 mmHg, -2 mm: 31.5±0.3 mmHg, -6 mm: 25.6±0.2 mmHg) valves had elevated mean gradients. In larger sized surgical valves (≥23 mm) the regurgitant fraction was higher at low implantation depths. Pinwheeling was significantly worse in the smaller sized (≤21 mm) surgical valves and also at low (<-2 mm) implantation depth.

CONCLUSIONS

The 23 mm ALLEGRA valve had favourable (<20 mmHg) gradients in all surgical valves sized ≥21 mm, even when the THV was implanted low. In 19 mm sized Mitroflow and Epic valves, gradients were elevated (>20 mmHg). While there was no major difference in mean transvalvular gradients, leaflet pinwheeling was worse at lower implantation depths.

Imaging for Predicting and Assessing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthetic valve is too small in relation to a patient's body size, thus resulting in high residual postoperative pressure gradients across the prosthesis. Severe PPM occurs in 2% to 20% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is associated with 1.5- to 2.0-fold increase in the risk of mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the role of multimodality imaging in the assessment, prediction, prevention, and management of PPM following AVR. The risk of PPM can be anticipated at the time of AVR by calculating the predicted indexed from the normal reference value of EOA of the selected prosthesis and patient's body surface area. The strategies to prevent PPM at the time of surgical AVR include: 1) implanting a newer generation of prosthetic valve with better hemodynamic; 2) enlarging the aortic root or annulus to accommodate a larger prosthetic valve; or 3) performing TAVR rather than surgical AVR. The identification and quantitation of PPM as well as its distinction versus prosthetic valve stenosis is primarily based on transthoracic echocardiography, but important information may be obtained from other imaging modalities such as transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. PPM is characterized by high transprosthetic velocity and gradients, normal EOA, small indexed EOA, and normal leaflet morphology and mobility. Transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography are particularly helpful to assess prosthetic valve leaflet morphology and mobility, which is a cornerstone of the differential diagnosis between PPM and pathologic valve obstruction. Severe symptomatic PPM following AVR with a bioprosthetic valve may be treated by redo surgery or the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure with fracturing of the surgical valve stent.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Comparing Different Transcatheter Heart Valve Designs: An Ex Vivo Bench Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors assessed the effect of valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) followed by bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF), testing different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs in an ex vivo bench study.

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthetic valve fracture can be performed to improve residual transvalvular gradients following VIV TAVR.

METHODS

The authors evaluated VIV TAVR and BVF with the SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) and ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Massachusetts) THVs. A 20-mm and 23-mm S3 were deployed in a 19-mm and 21-mm Mitroflow (Sorin Group USA, Arvada, Colorado), respectively. A small ACURATE neo was deployed in both sizes of Mitroflow tested. VIV TAVR samples underwent multimodality imaging, and hydrodynamic evaluation before and after BVF.

RESULTS

A high implantation was required to enable full expansion of the upper crown of the ACURATE neo and allow optimal leaflet function. Marked underexpansion of the lower crown of the THV within the surgical valve was also observed. Before BVF, VIV TAVR in the 19-mm Mitroflow had high transvalvular gradients using either THV design (22.0 mm Hg S3, and 19.1 mm Hg ACURATE neo). After BVF, gradients improved and were similar for both THVs (14.2 mm Hg S3, and 13.8 mm Hg ACURATE neo). The effective orifice area increased with BVF from 1.2 to 1.6 cm² with the S3 and from 1.4 to 1.6 cm² with the ACURATE neo. Before BVF, VIV TAVR with the ACURATE neo in the 21-mm Mitroflow had lower gradients compared with S3 (11.3 mm Hg vs. 16 mm Hg). However, after BVF valve gradients were similar for both THVs (8.4 mm Hg ACURATE neo vs. 7.8 mm Hg S3). The effective orifice area increased from 1.5 to 2.1 cm² with the S3 and from 1.8 to 2.2 cm² with the ACURATE neo.

CONCLUSIONS

BVF performed after VIV TAVR results in improved residual gradients. Following BVF, residual gradients were similar irrespective of THV design. Use of a small ACURATE neo for VIV TAVR in small (≤21 mm) surgical valves may be associated with challenges in achieving optimum THV position and expansion. BVF could be considered in selected clinical cases.

Percutaneous Valve Interventions in the Adult Congenital Heart Disease Population: Emerging Technologies and Indications

Adult survivors with congenital heart disease are not cured and residual cardiac valve lesions are common and contribute substantially to long-term morbidity. Given the increased risk of reoperations in patients with previous cardiac surgery, percutaneous treatment options have been developed. Initially percutaneous therapies focused on right ventricular outflow tract lesions, but they have now expanded to include mitral and aortic valve interventions. Although some of these procedures, such as balloon valvuloplasty of pulmonary valve stenosis and percutaneous pulmonary valve replacement, have become standard of care, there are many new and evolving technologies that will likely become important treatment strategies over the coming decade. The key for success of these transcatheter valve procedures is the careful evaluation of the patient's individual anatomy and physiology and a multidisciplinary assessment involving cardiologists specialized in adult congenital heart disease, specialized imagers, cardiac surgeons, and interventionalists. Because many of these percutaneous interventions are relatively new, long-term outcomes are not yet well defined, dictating the need for careful and structured long-term observational studies on outcomes of these novel procedures, which will allow refining the indications of a specific intervention and to improve its technical aspects. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of common valve lesions in the adult congenital heart disease population and to discuss treatment options and strategies with a specific focus on percutaneous options.

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.