Emergency transfemoral aortic valve-in-valve implantation with the balloon-expandable Edwards–Sapien valve

Emergency transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthesis failure: transapical implantation of an Edwards Sapien-XT in a dysfunctional mitral bioprosthesis in a critical patient

Background

Valve-in-Valve (VIV) Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is now the treatment of choice in high-surgical-risk patients with failing aortic bioprosthesis. Although less performed, VIV-Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement (TMVR) is a valid treatment option for selected high-risk patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses. Several cases of elective ViV- TAVR and -TMVR have been reported but only few were performed in critical hemodynamic conditions.

Case presentation

We report the case of a patient underwent balloon-expandable transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation in an emergency setting due to a severe stenosis of a bioprosthesis in mitral position. The procedure was successfully performed, with no residual mitral regurgitation or paravalvular leaks, and uneventful.

Conclusion

Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation could represent a feasible and effective strategy even in critical setting.

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

Background—

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) system might represent an alternative to conventional redo surgery in older high-risk patients with a failing aortic valve bioprosthesis.

Methods and Results—

Symptomatic patients with failing aortic valve bioprosthesis, aged ≥65 years with a logistic EuroSCORE ≥10 % were considered for treatment. Local anesthesia was used to retrogradely implant the MCV system into the failing bioprosthetic valve. Clinical events were recorded and a transthoracic echocardiography was performed to evaluate the impact of MCV on hemodynamics after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A total of 27 patients (aged 74.8±8 years, logistic EuroSCORE of 31±17%) were treated. In those with AS and AS and AR (n=25), the mean gradient declined from 42±16 mm Hg before to 18±8 mm Hg after MCV implantation ( P <0.001), in those with AR the level declined by 2. There was no intraprocedural death and no procedural myocardial infarction. On the basis of the definitions of the Valvular Academic Research Consortium, the rate of major stroke was 7.4 %, of life-threatening bleeding 7.4%, of kidney failure stage III 7.4%, and of major access site complication 11.1 %, respectively. Within 30 days after the procedure, 2 patients died; 1 from stroke and 1 from cardiac failure (30-day mortality: 7.4%).

Conclusions—

These results suggest that transfemoral MCV implantation into a wide range of degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves—irrespective of the failure mode—is feasible, safe, and improves hemodynamics in older patients with higher risk for conventional aortic valve redo surgery.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing bioprosthetic valves

Transcatheter valve implantation is becoming an alternative to conventional surgical valve replacement in patients at high surgical risk. While experience and acceptance with transcatheter techniques increased rapidly, transcatheter valve implantation within failing bioprostheses has emerged as a new concept (valve-in-valve implantation). Currently, the majority of prostheses implanted in patients are bioprosthetic valves that are expected to degenerate over time. Valve-in-valve implantation provides great utility in high-operative-risk patients since the mortality risk for reoperation can be significantly higher than for first-time isolated valve replacement. Although two current devices are CE Mark approved in Europe for implantation within native valves, off-label clinical implementation of valve-in-valve have been described in numerous case reports. In this article, we provide an overview of transcatheter valve implantation in failing bioprostheses with an emphasis on the aortic position.

Transcatheter aortic valves inadequately relieve stenosis in small degenerated bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) are a promising treatment for high risk surgical patients suffering from degeneration of previously implanted bioprostheses (valve-in-valve therapy). However, unlike native stenosed aortic valves which have accommodated Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter valves after valvuloplasty, rigid bioprostheses may prevent full TAV stent expansion and disrupt leaflet function. We hypothesized that current 23 mm TAVs would not completely relieve severe stenosis in small bioprosthetic valves. The objective of this study was to study the hemodynamics of TAVs in degenerated bioprostheses.

METHODS

Twelve TAVs designed to mimic the 23 mm SAPIEN valve were created. Using a pulse duplicator, hemodynamics of valve-in-valve implantation were measured within 19, 21, and 23 mm Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT degenerated bioprostheses (n=6 each). Bioprosthetic degeneration was simulated using BioGlue to achieve a mean pressure gradient of 50 mmHg.

RESULTS

TAVs significantly reduced the mean pressure gradient (50.9+/-4.7-9.1+/-4.1 mmHg, P<0.001) and total energy loss (870.3+/-157.4-307.8+/-87.3 mJ, P<0.001) in 23 mm degenerated bioprostheses. In 21 mm bioprostheses, the pressure gradient (52.3+/-7.0-19.5+/-5.0 mmHg, P<0.001) and energy loss (785.5+/-128.1-477.8+/-123.2 mJ, P=0.007) were reduced significantly. However, no significant changes in the pressure gradient (57.1+/-4.3-46.5+/-9.3 mmHg, P=0.086) or energy loss (839.3+/-49.3-960.5+/-158.1 mJ, P=0.144) were obtained after TAVI implantation in 19 mm bioprostheses. Incomplete stent expansion resulted in leaflet distortion and central regurgitation when implanted in 19 and 21 mm bioprostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

The bioprosthetic annulus and stent posts offered a suitable landing zone for TAVs. However, oversized transcatheter valves were constrained by the rigid bioprostheses resulting in inadequate resolution of bioprosthetic stenosis. Hemodynamics of valve-in-valve intervention was worse than comparable size surgical valve replacements, particularly in 19 and 21 mm valves. Small degenerated bioprostheses require modification of current TAV design to yield acceptable hemodynamics.