Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Single-center real-world data and technical considerations from 100 consecutive patients treated with the Perceval aortic bioprosthesis

Objectives

Although the Perceval sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis presents a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve prostheses, the extent of its applicability with respect to technical considerations for a real-world patient collective is still under debate.

Methods

One hundred patients received the Perceval prosthesis [males: 59; age: 72.5 (7.3-79) years] between December 2015 and February 2023 [EuroSCORE II: 2.8 (1.7-5.4)] for an aortic valve replacement (AVR), with additional concomitant procedures, for underlying severe aortic valve stenosis [n = 93 (93)], endocarditis [n = 5 (5)], and redo AVR [n = 7 (7)] including a prior surgical AVR [n = 4 (4)] and a failed transcatheter aortic valve implantation [n = 3 (3)]. Surgery was conducted primarily by median sternotomy [n = 71 (71)] and, alternatively, by the upper hemisternotomy approach [n = 29 (29)].

Results

Over a median follow-up time of 36.5 (16.5-53) months, eight patients (8%) underwent postoperative pacemaker implantation, with five (5%) due to high-grade atrioventricular block, while nine patients experienced a stroke (9%). The median values of maximum and mean gradients across all valve sizes were 22 (18-27.5) mmHg and 10 (13-18) mmHg, respectively. Two patients (2%) had moderate and one (1%) had severe paravalvular leakage, with the latter presenting the only case of underlying valve migration and induced redo AVR with valve explantation 2 days following initial surgery. Thirty-day mortality (and overall mortality) was 5% and 26%, respectively.

Conclusion

The implantation of the Perceval bioprosthesis is feasible for a variety of indications, with excellent hemodynamic results and low complication rates in a real-world high-risk patient collective.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The issues behind crossing a bioprosthesis

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV TAVI) is rapidly arising as a safe and effective alternative to redo-surgery in the treatment of bioprostheses deterioration. While scientific community is currently focusing its attention on the most common limitations related to this procedure, such as the risk of coronary obstruction and patient-prosthesis mismatch, data regarding the first step of a ViV TAVI, the crossing of a degenerated bioprosthesis, are still lacking. The aim of this review is to analyze the available information about bioprosthesis crossing, to show the inherent challenges encountered by interventional cardiologists during valve crossing and to describe the current strategies to perform a correct crossing.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Reoperative Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Mortality after reoperative aortic valve surgery continues to decline but remains high compared with primary isolated replacement. We sought to examine temporal trends, morbidity, and mortality among patients undergoing isolated first-time reoperative aortic valve surgery.

METHODS

The study included all patients undergoing reoperative aortic valve surgery in the United Kingdom between January 2007 and March 2019. Patients undergoing isolated reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) were compared with a propensity matched cohort of patients undergoing isolated primary AVR. Outcomes measured included inhospital mortality, neurologic dysfunction, postoperative dialysis, deep sternal wound infections, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

During the study period, 40,858 primary isolated AVRs and 3015 first-time isolated reoperative AVRs were carried out in the United Kingdom. In the propensity matched reoperative group, median age of participants was 69.8 years (60.8-76.2) with median duration between the initial surgery and the reoperation being 7.69 years. Overall mortality was 3.1% (94) for reoperative AVR compared with 1.9% (56) for primary AVR. Mortality of both primary and reoperative AVR declined during the study period. Reoperation, age, New York Heart Association class, and chronic kidney disease were independently associated with early mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperative isolated AVR can be performed with acceptable inhospital mortality and provides a benchmark against which alternative strategies should be compared.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Redo Procedures: Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have presented favorable hemodynamic performance while facilitating minimally invasive access approaches. As the population ages, the number of patients at risk for aortic valve reoperation constantly increases. The aim of the present study is to present our single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in reoperations. Materials and Methods: The data of 18 consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR in a reoperation between May 2020 and January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The mean age of the patients was 67.9 ± 11.1 years; patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a median logistic EuroSCORE II of 7.8 (IQR of 3.8-32.0) %. The implantation of the Perceval S prosthesis was technically successful in all patients. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 103.3 ± 50.0 min, and the cross-clamp time was 69.1 ± 38.8 min. No patients required a permanent pacemaker implantation. The postoperative gradient was 7.3 ± 2.4 mmHg, and no cases of paravalvular leakage were observed. There was one case of intraprocedural death, while the thirty-day mortality was 11%. Conclusions: Sutureless bioprosthetic valves tend to simplify the surgical procedure of a redo AVR. By maximizing the effective orifice area, sutureless valves may present an important advantage, being a safe and effective alternative not only to traditional surgical prostheses but also to transcatheter valve-in-valve approaches in select cases.

Coronary Obstruction during Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Pre-Procedural Risk Evaluation, Intra-Procedural Monitoring, and Follow-Up

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is emerging as an effective treatment for patients with symptomatically failing bioprosthetic valves and a high prohibitive surgical risk; a longer life expectancy has led to a higher demand for these valve reinterventions due to the increased possibilities of outliving the bioprosthetic valve's durability. Coronary obstruction is the most feared complication of valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR; it is a rare but life-threatening complication and occurs most frequently at the left coronary artery ostium. Accurate pre-procedural planning, mainly based on cardiac computed tomography, is crucial to determining the feasibility of a ViV TAVR and to assessing the anticipated risk of a coronary obstruction and the eventual need for coronary protection measures. Intraprocedurally, the aortic root and a selective coronary angiography are useful for evaluating the anatomic relationship between the aortic valve and coronary ostia; transesophageal echocardiographic real-time monitoring of the coronary flow with a color Doppler and pulsed-wave Doppler is a valuable tool that allows for a determination of real-time coronary patency and the detection of asymptomatic coronary obstructions. Because of the risk of developing a delayed coronary obstruction, the close postprocedural monitoring of patients at a high risk of developing coronary obstructions is advisable. CT simulations of ViV TAVR, 3D printing models, and fusion imaging represent the future directions that may help provide a personalized lifetime strategy and tailored approach for each patient, potentially minimizing complications and improving outcomes.

Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR).

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?

INTRODUCTION

Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient.

EXPERT OPINION

With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.

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.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve on the Move

• Acute bioprosthetic aortic valve regurgitation can present with cardiogenic shock. • Echocardiography is critical in the assessment of bioprosthetic aortic valve function. • In up to 6% of patients with infectious endocarditis, no microbiologic agent is identified. • Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for prosthetic acute aortic regurgitation.

In-Hospital Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality for Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve Replacement

Durability is a major limitation with bioprosthetic heart valves. For mitral valve prosthesis dysfunction, redo surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR) has been the mainstay of treatment; however, transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (mViV) has emerged as a viable alternative. Data comparing these procedures remains limited; therefore, we sought to compare the real-world in-hospital mortality, likelihood of adverse peri-operative outcomes, and predictors of mortality between rSMVR versus mViV using the National Inpatient Sample. During the study period, a weighted total of 1,890 patients (78%) underwent rSMVR, and 520 (22%) underwent mViV. After propensity matching, there were 310 patients in each cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality with these procedures (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 3.45; p = 0.31). rSMVR was associated with increased length of hospitalization (13 vs 7.5 days; p <0.001), increased medical costs ($324,124 vs $241,147; p <0.001), and increased peri-operative complications compared with mViV. Predictors of mortality unique to rSMVR were age >75 years, cirrhosis, sleep apnea, malnourishment/low body mass index, and obesity, signalizing greater suitability for mViV in these populations.

Current surgical bioprostheses: Looking to the future

The utilization of bioprostheses for surgical heart valve replacement has been increasing across all age groups. For patients, the appeal of the bioprosthetic valve rests with the avoidance of anticoagulation, fewer thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, and the increasing availability of transcatheter valve-in-valve interventions -both in the aortic and mitral positions- allowing for lower morbidity reinterventions. While improvements in valve hemodynamics and long-term durability have made bioprostheses a reasonable choice for a growing number of patients, challenges do remain. With increasing usage of bioprostheses, especially in younger patients, there will be an increase in the projected number of failing bioprosthetic valves. This trend will bring even more emphasis to maximizing long-term durability, optimizing anticoagulation, and promoting patient-level decision making around prosthesis choice.

The use of balloon-expandable Sapien-3 valve in redo aortic valve replacement and the potential risk of left main stem occlusion

Redo aortic valve surgery for the failure of a previously implanted valve is always challenging. In case of small‐sized implanted valves, the use of a balloon‐expanding Sapien‐3 valve can enhance the final effective orifice area, avoid annulus enlargement complex techniques, and can reduce operative time and morbidities. We describe a case where after explanting a failed 19 mm St. Jude mechanical aortic valve and further deployment of a 23 mm Sapien‐3 valve, the left coronary ostia was obstructed by the skirt of the transcatheter prosthesis. After careful removal of a little part of the skirt, we were able to restore the coronary flow and the patient had a favorable outcome.

The Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve-in-Valve Technique in Degenerated Bioprostheses Without Fluoroscopic Radiopaque Landmarks

Nonetheless, in principle, bioprosthetic heart valves are often preferred to mechanical valves in that not only do they obviate the need for high-level systemic anticoagulation and the attendant bleeding risks, but also higher rates of prosthetic valve thrombosis have been reported observed in the tricuspid position. The transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve (TVIV) procedure has expanded the horizons of cardiac surgery by allowing the implantation of stent-valves within degenerated bioprostheses in older adults and even young patients as the reported rate of the mortality of redo surgery in antecedent studies is at least 37%. Fluoroscopic guidance can assist the operator in implanting a bioprosthetic valve by radiopaque findings in the ideal position and depth; nonetheless, the complete radiolucency of some bioprosthetic valves represents a significant hurdle. In this state-of-the-art manuscript, we decided to deeply explain the appropriate heart-team approach in this scenario.

A Sneak-Peek into the Physician's Brain: A Retrospective Machine Learning-Driven Investigation of Decision-Making in TAVR versus SAVR for Young High-Risk Patients with Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has rapidly become a viable alternative to the conventional isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR) for treating severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. However, data on younger patients is scarce and a gap exists between data-based recommendations and the clinical use of TAVR. In our study, we utilized a machine learning (ML) driven approach to model the complex decision-making process of Heart Teams when treating young patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis with either TAVR or iSAVR and to identify the relevant considerations. Out of the considered factors, the variables most prominently featured in our ML model were congestive heart failure, established risk assessment scores, previous cardiac surgeries, a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and peripheral vascular disease. Our study demonstrates a viable application of ML-based approaches for studying and understanding complex clinical decision-making processes.

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.

Reintervention rates following bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement-a Danish Nationwide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Updated European guidelines recommend annual echocardiographic evaluation after bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (bio-SAVR). Given the increased demand on health care resources, only clinically relevant controls can be prioritized. We therefore aimed to explore reintervention rates following bio-SAVR.

METHODS

From the nationwide Danish Register of Surgical Procedures, we identified all patients ≥40 years with isolated bio-SAVR ± concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) during 2000-2016. In 90-day reintervention-free survivors, we assessed aortic valve reintervention rates (primary outcome) and all-cause mortality rates (secondary outcome) at 1, 3 and 5 years with total follow-up until 31 December 2017 and further estimated annual theoretical echocardiographic control visits.

RESULTS

In 10 518 patients with bio-SAVR (+CABG 39.7%), we observed low reintervention rates at 1, 3 and 5 years, but with high rates of all-cause mortality; i.e. 5-year reintervention rate of 3.7/1000 person-years (≤1.5%) and 5-year mortality rate of 21.7/1000 person-years. Accounting for the competing risk of death, 5-year rates were inversely related to age group and remained relatively low across all age categories but increased gradually in the long term. A significant proportion of reinterventions were presumed due to infectious endocarditis (48% at 3 years, 37% at 5 years). With annual transthoracic echocardiography, the theoretical ratio of echocardiographies per reintervention in the first 5 years was 248, and 425 when endocarditis events were excluded.

CONCLUSION

Reintervention rates within the first 5 years following bio-SAVR were relatively rare, and with a substantial number due to endocarditis.

Repeat aortic valve surgery: contemporary outcomes and risk stratification

OBJECTIVES

Redo aortic valve surgery (rAVS) is performed with increasing frequency, but operative mortality is usually higher compared to that associated with primary aortic valve surgery. We analysed our patients who had rAVS to determine the current outcomes of rAVS as a surgical benchmark in view of the growing interest in transcatheter valve techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 148 consecutive patients [median age 67.7 years (interquartile range 54.9-77.6); 68.2% men] who underwent rAVS following aortic valve replacement (81.6%), aortic root replacement (15%) or aortic valve repair (3.4%) between 2000 and 2018.

RESULTS

Indications for rAVS were structural valve dysfunction (42.7%), endocarditis (37.8%), non-structural valve dysfunction (17.7%) and aortic aneurysm (2.1%). Valve replacement was performed in 69.7%, and 34 new root procedures were necessary in 23%. Early mortality was 9.5% (n = 14). Female gender [odds ratio (OR) 6.16], coronary disease (OR 4.26) and lower creatinine clearance (OR 0.95) were independent predictors of early mortality. Follow-up was 98.6% complete [median 5.9 (interquartile range 1.7-10.9) years]. Survival was 74.1 ± 3.7%, 57.9 ± 5.1% and 43.8 ± 6.1% at 5, 10 and 14 years, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed female gender [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73], diabetes (HR 1.73), coronary disease (HR 1.62) and peripheral vascular disease (HR 1.98) as independent determinants of late survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite many urgent situations and advanced New York Heart Association functional class at presentation, rAVS could be performed with acceptable early and late outcomes. Risk factors for survival were female gender, coronary disease and urgency. In this all-comers patient cohort needing rAVS, only a minority would eventually qualify for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures.

Early and Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Degeneration: Two Faces of the Same Medal

OBJECTIVE

To compare early and midterm outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

DESIGN

Patients who underwent ViV-TAVI and re-SAVR for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration between January 2010 and October 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Mean follow-up was 3.0 years.

SETTING

In-hospital, early, and mid-term outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-eight patients were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-one patients (37.3%) had ViV-TAVI, and 57 patients (62.7%) had re-SAVR.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the ViV-TAVI group, patients were older (79.1 ± 7.4 v 67.2 ± 14.1, p < 0.01). The total operative time, intubation time, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, inotropes infusion, intubation >24 hours, total amount of chest tube losses, red blood cell transfusions, plasma transfusions, and reoperation for bleeding were significantly higher in the re-SAVR cohort (p < 0.01). There was no difference regarding in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (ViV-TAVI = 3.2% v re-SAVR = 8.8%, p = 0.27), patient-prosthesis mismatch (ViV-TAVI = 12 patients [mean 0.53 ± 0.07] and re-SAVR = ten patients [mean 0.56 ± 0.08], p = 0.4), stroke (ViV-TAVI = 3.2% v re-SAVR = 7%, p = 0.43), acute kidney injury (ViV-TAVI = 9.7% v re-SAVR = 15.8%, p = 0.1), and all-cause infections (ViV-TAVI = 0% v re-SAVR = 8.8%, p = 0.02), between the two groups. In-hospital mortality was 0% and 7% for ViV-TAVI and re-SAVR, respectively (p = 0.08). At three-years' follow-up, the incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the re-SAVR group (ViV-TAVI = 0 v re-SAVR = 13.4%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in reintervention (ViV-TAVI = 3.8% v re-SAVR = 0%, p = 0.32) and survival (ViV-TAVI = 83.9% v re-SAVR = 93%, p = 0.10) between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV-TAVI is a safe, feasible, and reliable procedure.

Cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

It is controversial that cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) reduce clinical stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Herein, we investigated the impact of CEPDs on in-hospital clinical stroke using a nationally representative sample.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, 109,240 patients who underwent TAVR between 2017 and 2018 were included. They were categorized into 2 groups according to usage of CEPDs; the CEPD and non-CEPD groups. After propensity score matching, 3805 pairs were acquired. Our main outcome was in-hospital clinical stroke. Other outcomes were in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), AKI leading to hemodialysis, bleeding requiring transfusion, overall bleeding complications, infectious complications, length of stay, and total cost. In-hospital clinical stroke did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (0.7% versus 1.1%, p = 0.449). The CEPD group was associated with a significantly lower in-hospital mortality (0.5% versus 1.4%, p = 0.029) and reduced total cost ($49,047 ± 19,666 versus $50,051 ± 23,190, p < 0.001), compared with the non-CEPD group, whereas there were no significant differences in the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

By using the NIS database with a large number of cases, TAVR with CEPDs was not associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital clinical stroke compared with no use of CEPDs after matching.

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

With the growing contemporary use of bioprosthetic valves, whose limited long-term durability has been well-documented, an increase in the need for reintervention is expected. We perform a meta-analysis to compare the current standard of care, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo SAVR) with the less invasive alternative, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) for treating structural valve deterioration.

METHODS

After a comprehensive literature search, studies comparing ViV TAVR to Redo SAVR were pooled to perform a pairwise meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Primary outcomes were 30-day and follow-up mortality.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies including 9127 patients were included. ViV TAVR patients were significantly older (mean difference [MD], 5.82; p = .0002) and more frequently had hypercholesterolemia (59.7 vs. 60.0%; p = .0006), coronary artery disease (16.1 vs. 16.1%; p = .04), periphery artery disease (15.4 vs. 5.7%; p = .004), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29.3 vs. 26.2%; p = .04), renal failure (30.2 vs. 24.0%; p = .009), and >1 previous cardiac surgery (23.6 vs. 15.9%; p = .004). Despite this, ViV TAVR was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR, 0.56; p < .0001). Conversely, Redo SAVR had lower 30-day paravalvular leak (OR, 6.82; p = .04), severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR, 3.77; p < .0001), and postoperative aortic valve gradients (MD, 5.37; p < .0001). There was no difference in follow-up mortality (HR, 1.02; p = .86).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having patients with an increased baseline risk, ViV TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality, while Redo SAVR had lower paravalvular leak, severe patient-prosthesis mismatch, and postoperative gradients. Although ViV TAVR remains a feasible treatment option in high-risk patients, randomized trials are necessary to elucidate its efficacy over Redo SAVR.

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

Background

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

Methods and Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Degeneration of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: Update 2020

The implantation of bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) is increasingly becoming the treatment of choice in patients requiring heart valve replacement surgery. Unlike mechanical heart valves, BHVs are less thrombogenic and exhibit superior hemodynamic properties. However, BHVs are prone to structural valve degeneration (SVD), an unavoidable condition limiting graft durability. Mechanisms underlying SVD are incompletely understood, and early concepts suggesting the purely degenerative nature of this process are now considered oversimplified. Recent studies implicate the host immune response as a major modality of SVD pathogenesis, manifested by a combination of processes phenocopying the long‐term transplant rejection, atherosclerosis, and calcification of native aortic valves. In this review, we summarize and critically analyze relevant studies on (1) SVD triggers and pathogenesis, (2) current approaches to protect BHVs from calcification, (3) obtaining low immunogenic BHV tissue from genetically modified animals, and (4) potential strategies for SVD prevention in the clinical setting.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation Edwards Sapien XT in a direct flow valve after early degeneration

In recent years, the use of bioprosthetic valve (BPV) has increased significantly with both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to reasons such as the advantage of not using anticoagulants. Nevertheless, major disadvantage of all BPV is the risk of early structural valve deterioration, leading to valve dysfunction, and requires reoperation, which significantly increases the risk of mortality or major morbidity especially after SAVR. There are a limited number of TAV-in-TAV case reports due to TAVI BPV degeneration. In our knowledge, this is the second report of TAV-in-TAV implantation wherein a previously implanted transfemoral 25-mm nonmetallic Direct Flow SVD valve treated with ViV TAVI via Edwards Sapien XT.

Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Durability on Life Expectancy in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background:

Recent clinical trial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization. However, the impact of transcatheter valve durability remains uncertain.

Methods:

Discrete event simulation was used to model hypothetical scenarios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times were varied to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in a cohort of low-risk patients similar to those in recent trials. Discrete event simulation modeling was used to estimate the tradeoff between a less invasive procedure with unknown valve durability (TAVR) and that of a more invasive procedure with known durability (SAVR). Standardized differences were calculated, and a difference >0.10 was considered clinically significant. In the base-case analysis, patients with structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation were assumed to undergo a valve-in-valve TAVR procedure. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in younger age groups (40, 50, and 60 years).

Results:

Our cohort consisted of patients with aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with a mean age of 73.4±5.9 years. In the base-case scenario, the standardized difference in life expectancy was <0.10 between TAVR and SAVR until transcatheter valve prosthesis failure time was 70% shorter than that of surgical prostheses. At a transcatheter valve failure time <30% compared with surgical valves, SAVR was the preferred option. In younger patients, life expectancy was reduced when TAVR durability was 30%, 40%, and 50% shorter than that of surgical valves in 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old patients, respectively.

Conclusions:

According to our simulation models, the durability of TAVR valves must be 70% shorter than that of surgical valves to result in reduced life expectancy in patients with demographics similar to those of recent trials. However, in younger patients, this threshold for TAVR valve durability was substantially higher. These findings suggest that durability concerns should not influence the initial treatment decision concerning TAVR versus SAVR in older low-risk patients on the basis of current evidence supporting TAVR valve durability. However, in younger low-risk patients, valve durability must be weighed against other patient factors such as life expectancy.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation after failed surgically implanted aortic bioprosthesis versus native transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis: Data from a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a treatment for aortic bioprosthesis failure in case of prohibitive risk for redo surgery. However, clinical evaluation of valve-in-valve TAVI remains limited by the number of patients analysed.

AIM

To evaluate outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVI compared with native aortic valve TAVI at a nationwide level in France.

METHODS

Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with TAVI for aortic stenosis or with isolated valve-in-valve TAVI for aortic bioprosthesis failure between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 44,218 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 2749 patients were analysed in each arm. At 30 days, no significant differences were observed regarding the occurrence of major clinical events (composite of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, major or life-threatening bleeding and conversion to open heart surgery) (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.01; P=0.32). During follow-up (mean 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the valve-in-valve TAVI and native TAVI groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.13; P=1.00).

CONCLUSION

We observed that valve-in-valve TAVI was associated with good short- and long-term outcomes. No significant differences were observed compared with native valve TAVI regarding clinical follow-up.

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure is a safe alternative to conventional reoperation for bioprosthetic dysfunction. Balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve (SEV) are the 2 major types of devices used. Evidence regarding the comparison of the 2 valves remains scarce.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of BEV and SEV in transcatheter VIV for aortic bioprostheses dysfunction. A computerized search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed. English-language journal articles reporting SEV or BEV outcomes of at least 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included, with 2,269 and 1,671 patients in the BEV and SEV groups, respectively. Rates of 30-day mortality and stroke did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, BEV was associated with significantly lower rates of postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (3.8% vs. 12%; P < 0.001). Regarding echocardiographic parameters, SEV was associated with larger postprocedural effective orifice area at 30 days (1.53 cm2 vs. 1.23 cm2; P < 0.001) and 1 year (1.55 cm2 vs. 1.22 cm2; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who underwent transcatheter aortic VIV, SEV was associated with larger postprocedural effective orifice area but higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation. These findings provide valuable information for optimizing device selection for transcatheter aortic VIV.