Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome

Incidence and Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Failed Bioprosthetic Valves

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely used, comparably efficient and safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Its utilization continues to grow, especially among younger patients. Despite improvements in durability, degeneration and subsequent re-interventions of failed prosthetic valves are still common. Even though valve-in-valve procedures have become more frequent, little is known about the trends over time or about clinical and echocardiographic long-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent a valve-in-valve procedure between December 2011 and December 2022 in a large tertiary university hospital were analyzed. Primary outcomes were defined as procedural and device successes as well as event-free survival. Secondary analyses between subsets of patients divided by index valve and date of procedure were performed.

RESULTS

Among 1407 procedures, 58 (4%) were valve-in-valve interventions, with an increased frequency observed over time. Overall, technical success was achieved in 88% and device success in 85% of patients. Complications were predominantly minor, with similar success rates among TAVR-in-SAVR (TiSAVR) and TAVR-in-TAVR (TiTAVR). Notably, there were significant and lasting improvements in mean echocardiographic gradients at 1 year. Event-free survival was 76% at one month and 69% at one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last decade, a rising trend of valve-in-valve procedures was observed. Despite an increase in procedures, complications show a contrasting decline with improved technical and device success over time. TiSAVR and TiTAVR showed comparable rates of procedural and device success as well as similar outcomes, highlighting the utility of valve-in-valve procedures in an aging population.

Prosthesis Tailoring for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has risen over the past 20 years as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis, and is now a well-established and recommended treatment option in suitable patients irrespective of predicted risk of mortality after surgery. Studies of numerous devices, either newly developed or reiterations of previous prostheses, have been accruing. We hereby review TAVI devices, with a focus on commercially available options, and aim to present a guide for prosthesis tailoring according to patient-related anatomical and clinical factors that may favor particular designs.

Hemodynamic follow-up after valve-in-valve TAVR for failed aortic bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

"valve-in-valve" TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is established and provides good initial clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Lacking long-term durability data baffle the expand to lower risk patients. For those purposes, the present study adds a hemodynamic 3-years follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 77 patients underwent VIV-TAVR for failing aortic bioprosthesis during a 7-years period. Predominant mode of failure was stenosis in 87.0%. Patients had a mean age of 79.4 ± 5.8 years and a logistic EuroSCORE of 30.8 ± 15.7%. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-PROM averaged 5.79 ± 2.63%. Clinical results and hemodynamic outcomes are reported for 30-days, 1-, 2-, and 3-years. Completeness of follow-up was 100% with 44 patients at risk after 3-years. Follow-up ranged up to 7.1 years.

RESULTS

Majority of the surgical valves were stented (94.8%) with a mean labeled size of 23.1 ± 2.3 mm and true-ID of 20.4 ± 2.6 mm. A true-ID ≤21 mm had 58.4% of the patients. Self-expanding valves were implanted in 68.8% (mean labeled size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm) and balloon-expanded in 31.2% (mean size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm). No patient died intraoperatively. Hospital mortality was 1.3% and three-years survival 57.1%. All patients experienced an initial significant dPmean-reduction to 16.8 ± 7.1 mmHg. After 3-years mean dPmean raised to 26.0 ± 12.2 mmHg. This observation was independent from true-ID or type of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-prosthesis. Patients with a true-ID ≤21 mm had a higher initial (18.3 ± 5.3 vs. 14.9 ± 7.1 mmHg; p = .005) and dPmean after 1-year (29.2 ± 8.2 vs. 13.0 ± 6.7 mmHg; p = .004). There were no significant differences in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

VIV-TAVR is safe and effective in the early period. In surgical valves with a true-ID ≤21 mm inferior hemodynamic and survival outcomes must be expected. Nonetheless, also patients with larger true-IDs showed steadily increasing transvalvular gradients. This raises concern about durability.

Review of bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration: Patient or valve?

BACKGROUND

With guidelines progressively recommending bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients, a greater emphasis is placed on structural valve deterioration (SVD) as an important clinical endpoint for both transcatheter and surgically implanted valves. However, SVD of bioprosthetic valves is a complex entity with varying definitions in the literature and a multifaceted pathogenesis.

AIM

This review first aims to establish the most updated definitions of SVD as per the literature. We then explore the patient- and valve-related factors that play the greatest roles in facilitating early SVD.

METHODS

A PubMed literature review was conducted to identify the relevant research in this field within the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

Increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome pose a significant risk to the longevity of bioprosthetic valves. Additionally, externally mounted valves have proven to sacrifice durability for superior haemodynamics. Bioprosthetic SVD continues to be a multifactorial issue that will require various patient- and valve-related factors to be addressed.

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

Objective

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Evolving Indications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to Surgical Valve Replacement: A Review of the Current Literature

Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) are categorized into high risk, intermediate risk, and low risk. The identification of risk status is done using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score. Various factors are considered such as clinical symptoms, ejection fraction, age, left ventricle measurements, severity of AS, associated comorbid factors, and any other associated cardiac diseases. Surgery is still a standard practice in many countries. However, it has its own complications, especially in high-risk patients. Transcatheter intervention is getting precipitous recognition as an alternative mode of treatment in selected cases to mitigate complication rates and improve quality of life. In this article, transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement are compared in patients with different surgical risks. The impact of the cost of the procedure and quality of life are of paramount importance in choosing the type of intervention. Structural valve degeneration is an independent risk factor affecting patient outcomes. Modifications in valve designs are being constantly implemented as well. The standard analytical methods are in accordance with randomized clinical trials to determine the efficacy and outcome of procedures. Primary and secondary endpoints were considered to evaluate the data. The results were tabulated to derive statistical significance of the studies. In high-risk surgical patients, transcatheter intervention has been proven as the procedure of choice for valve replacement. However, intermediate-risk and low-risk categories need further studies.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural degeneration of previously implanted transcatheter valves (TAVR-in-TAVR): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a valid treatment for patients with aortic valve stenosis and high or intermediate surgical risk. However, biological transcatheter valves can also experience a structural degeneration after years, and a redo-TAVR procedure (TAVR-in-TAVR) can be a valid option. We revised the current available literature for indications, procedural and technical details and outcome on TAVR-in-TAVR procedures for degenerated TAVR valves.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the public medical database for scientific articles on TAVR-in-TAVR procedures for degenerated transcatheter valves. Data on demographics, indications, first and second transcatheter valve type and size, mortality, complications and follow-up were extracted and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (1 multicentre, 3 case series, 9 case reports) were included in this review, with a total amount of 160 patients treated with TAVR-in-TAVR procedures for transcatheter valve failure. The mean age was 74.8 ± 7.8 with 84 males (52.8%). The mean elapsed time from the first TAVR procedure was 58.1 ± 23.4 months. Main indication for TAVR-in-TAVR was pure stenosis (38.4%, with mean gradient of 44.5 ± 18.5 mmHg), regurgitation (31.4%), mixed stenosis and regurgitation (29.5%) and leaflet thrombosis (8.8%). Procedural success rate was 86.8%, with second TAVR valve malposition occurred in 4 cases (2.5%). The hospital mortality rate was 1.25% (2/160). Post-procedural echocardiographic control showed moderate regurgitation in 5.6% of patients (9/160) and residual transvalvular mean gradient ≥20 mmHg in 5% of cases. Postoperative complications included major vascular complications (8.7%), new pacemaker implantation (8.7%), acute kidney failure (3.7%), stroke (0.6%) and coronary obstruction (0.6%). The mean follow-up time was 6 ± 5.6 months with 1 non-cardiovascular death reported.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR-in-TAVR represents a valid alternative to standard surgery for the treatment of degenerated transcatheter valves in high-risk patients. Despite these promising results, further studies are required to assess durability and haemodynamic performances of the second TAVR valve.

SUBJ COLLECTION

117, 122, 125.

Aortic Valve Neocuspidization Using Autologous Pericardium (Ozaki Procedure): an Alternative to Aortic Valve Replacement in Adult Cardiac Surgery?

Purpose of the Review

The aim of this article is to describe the technique of aortic valve neocuspidization using autologous pericardium (AVNeo, “OZAKI procedure”) in adult cardiac surgery, to analyze recent findings, and to discuss benefits and limitations of this technique.

Recent Findings

Potential benefits of this technique include excellent hemodynamic performances, minimal use of foreign material, low rates of permanent pacemaker implantation, and omission of oral anticoagulation. However, data regarding the durability of the procedure are hitherto limited, and the procedure is associated with a higher complexity compared to aortic valve replacement.

Summary

AVNeo using autologous pericardium in adult cardiac surgery is a promising technique providing several benefits. However, there is a major unmet need for more data, especially regarding long-term durability. Thus, based on currently available data, we recommend careful patient selection within the heart team and shared decision-making with the informed patient.

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.

Noncalcific Mechanisms of Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Degeneration

Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) largely circumvent the need for long‐term anticoagulation compared with mechanical valves but are increasingly susceptible to deterioration and reduced durability with reoperation rates of ≈10% and 30% at 10 and 15 years, respectively. Structural valve degeneration is a common, unpreventable, and untreatable consequence of BHV implantation and is frequently characterized by leaflet calcification. However, 25% of BHV reoperations attributed to structural valve degeneration occur with minimal leaflet mineralization. This review discusses the noncalcific mechanisms of BHV structural valve degeneration, highlighting the putative roles and pathophysiological relationships between protein infiltration, glycation, oxidative and mechanical stress, and inflammation and the structural consequences for surgical and transcatheter BHVs.

In silico approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement inspection

Introduction: Increasing applications of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat high- or medium-risk patients with aortic diseases have been proposed in recent years. Despite its increasing use, many influential factors are still to be understood. Furthermore, innovative applications of TAVR such as in bicuspid aortic valves or in low-risk patients are emerging in clinical use. Numerical analyses are increasingly used to reproduce clinical treatments. The future trends in this area are foreseen for in silico trials and personalized medicine. Areas covered: This review paper analyzes the recent years (Jan 2018 - Aug 2020) of in silico studies simulating the behavior of transcatheter aortic valves with emphasis on the addressed clinical question and the used modeling strategies. The manuscripts are firstly classified based on their clinical hypothesis. A second classification is based on the adopted modeling approach in terms of patient domain, device modeling, and inclusion or exclusion of the fluid domain. Expert opinion: The TAVR can be virtually performed in numerous vessel geometries and with different devices. This versatility allows a rapid evaluation of the feasibility of different implantation approaches for specific patients, and patient populations, resulting in faster and safer introduction or optimization of new treatments or devices.

Safety and efficacy of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently expanded toward the treatment of younger patients with lower surgical risk and longer life expectancy. Thus, transcatheter heart valve (THV) durability has become a central issue, and an important increase in the number of TAVR-in-TAVR is expected in the coming years. Areas covered: Overview of the current status of TAVR-in-TAVR for the treatment of THV dysfunction, focusing on safety and efficacy of repeat TAVR procedures. Expert opinion: An accurate analysis of the pre-procedure cardiac computed tomography, incorporating new parameters such as the position of the top of the first THV in relation to the sinotubular-junction, will be necessary to assess the risk of coronary occlusion. Subsequent coronary angiography will be necessary in a proportion of TAVR-in-TAVR patients, but coronary access may be very difficult or even impossible in some of them. Therefore, the choice between TAVR and SAVR in young low-risk patients should incorporate the potential need for treating coronary events at mid- to long-term follow-up. Likewise, the choice of the valve type and the implantation position at the time of the first TAVR procedure should take into account the possibility of TAVR-in-TAVR in the future.Abbreviations ACS: acute coronary syndrome; CO: coronary obstruction; EOA: effective orifice area; SAVR: surgical aortic valve replacement; SVD: structural valve degenerationTAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement; THV: transcatheter heart valve.

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome

Background

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve‐in‐TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher‐risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention.

Methods and Results

Clinical and procedural data of patients who underwent ViTAVR at 3 sites in the United States and Germany were retrospectively compared with data of patients who underwent ViSAVR at Cedars‐Sinai Medical Center, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium‐2 criteria. A total of 99 consecutive patients, 52.5% women, with a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 7.2 were identified. Seventy‐four patients (74.7%) underwent ViSAVR, and 25 patients (25.3%) underwent ViTAVR. Balloon‐expandable devices were used in 72.7%. ViSAVR patients presented with smaller index devices (21.0 versus 26.0 mm median true internal diameter; P<0.001). Significantly better postprocedural hemodynamics (median prosthesis mean gradient, 12.5 [interquartile range, 8.8–16.2] versus 16.0 [interquartile range, 13.0–20.5] mm Hg; P=0.045) were observed for ViTAVR compared with the ViSAVR. Device success, however, was not different (79.2% and 66.2% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively; P=0.35), as were rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7% versus 5.4%; P=0.1). One‐year‐mortality was 9.4% and 13.4% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively (log‐rank P=0.38).

Conclusions

Compared with ViSAVR, ViTAVR provides acceptable outcomes, with slightly better hemodynamics, similar device success rates, and similar 1‐year mortality.