Coronary access after ACURATE neo2 implantation for valve-in-valve TAVR: Insights from ex vivo simulations

Coronary Access and PCI after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Different Self-Expanding Platforms in Failed Surgical Valves

BACKGROUND

Coronary access (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) might be challenging after valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with supra-annular self-expanding valves (SS-TAVs) in surgical aortic valves (SAVs). Our study aim was to compare feasibility, predictors, and techniques of CA and PCI following ViV-TAVR with ACURATE neo2 (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) and Evolut PRO+ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN).

METHODS

Fifteen computed tomography (CT)-based patient-specific aortic models were 3-dimensionally (3D) printed and implanted with specific SAVs and with the 2 SS-TAVs with commissural alignment. Two operators attempted CA (n = 120) and PCI (n = 120) of each coronary artery in a pulsatile-flow-simulator, under real catheterization laboratory conditions. The primary endpoints were the rate of successful CA and PCI. Outcomes with different SS-TAVs were directly compared. An internally mounted borescope camera was used to assess procedures. CT of the models was obtained.

RESULTS

ACURATE neo2 showed significantly higher rates of successful CA (96.7% vs 75%, P = 0.001) and PCI (98.3% vs 85%, P = 0.008) and was associated with a shorter procedural time compared with Evolut PRO+. Independent predictors of unsuccessful CA and PCI were smaller SAV size and Evolut PRO+. The advantage of ACURATE neo2 was mediated by a larger valve-to-anatomy distance at the top of the leaflet plane (11.3 mm vs 4.8 mm), facilitating more often an external cannulation approach for both CA (36.7% vs 15%, P < 0.001) and PCI (36.7% vs 21.7%, P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of successful CA and PCI following ViV-TAVR was higher with ACURATE neo2 compared with Evolut PRO+. The differences in SS-TAVs design affected the cannulation approach and subsequent procedural outcomes.

Impact of leaflet splitting on coronary access after redo-TAVI for degenerated supra-annular self-expanding platforms

BACKGROUND

Coronary access (CA) is a major concern in redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for failing supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs).

AIMS

This ex vivo study evaluated the benefit of leaflet splitting (LS) on subsequent CA after redo-TAVI in anatomies deemed at high risk of unfeasible CA.

METHODS

Ex vivo, patient-specific models were printed three-dimensionally. Index TAVI was performed using ACURATE neo2 or Evolut PRO (TAV-1) at the standard implant depth and with different degrees of commissural misalignment (CMA). Redo-TAVI was performed using the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (TAV-2) at different implant depths with commissural alignment. Selective CA was attempted for each configuration before and after LS in a pulsatile flow simulator. The leaflet splay area was assessed on the bench.

RESULTS

In matched comparisons of 128 coronary cannulations across 64 redo-TAVI configurations, the overall feasibility of CA significantly increased after LS (60.9% vs 18.7%; p<0.001). The effect of LS varied according to the sinotubular junction height, TAV-1 design, TAV-1 CMA, and TAV-2 implant depth, given TAV-2 alignment. LS enabled CA for up to CMA 45° with the ACURATE neo2 TAV-1 and up to CMA 30° with the Evolut PRO TAV-1. The combination of LS and a low TAV-2 implant provided the highest feasibility of CA after redo-TAVI. The leaflet splay area ranged from 25.60 mm2 to 37.86 mm2 depending on the TAV-1 platform and TAV-2 implant depth.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk anatomies, LS significantly improves CA feasibility after redo-TAVI for degenerated supra-annular self-expanding platforms. Decisions on redo-TAVI feasibility should be carefully individualised, taking into account the expected benefit of LS on CA for each scenario.

Redo-TAVI with the ACURATE neo2 and Prime XL for balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve failure

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding treatment for failed balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in redo-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

AIMS

We aimed to assess THV performance, neoskirt height and expansion when performing redo-TAVI with the ACURATE platform inside a SAPIEN 3 (S3) compared to redo-TAVI with an S3 in an S3.

METHODS

Redo-TAVI was performed on the bench using each available size of the S3, the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) and the next-generation ACURATE Prime XL (AC XL) implanted at 2 different depths within 20 mm/23 mm/26 mm/29 mm S3s serving as the "failed" index THV. Hydrodynamic testing was performed to assess THV function. Multimodality assessment was performed using photography, X-ray, microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and high-speed videos.

RESULTS

The ACURATE in S3 combinations had favourable hydrodynamic performance compared to the S3 in S3 for all size combinations. In the 20 mm S3, redo-TAVI with the ACn2 had lower gradients compared to the S3 (mean gradient 16.3 mmHg for the ACn2 vs 24.7 mmHg for the 20 mm S3 in 20 mm S3). Pinwheeling was less marked for the ACURATE THVs than for the S3s. On micro-CT, the S3s used for redo-TAVI were underexpanded across all sizes. This was also observed for the ACURATE platform, but to a lesser extent.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo-TAVI with an ACn2/AC XL within an S3 has favourable hydrodynamic performance and less pinwheeling compared to an S3 in S3. This comes at the price of a taller neoskirt.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation to Treat Degenerated Aortic, Mitral and Tricuspid Bioprosthesis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now well established as the treatment of choice for patients with native aortic valve stenosis who are high or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Recent data has also supported the use of TAVI in patients at low surgical risk and also in anatomical subsets that were previously felt to be contra-indicated including bicuspid aortic valves and aortic regurgitation. With advancements and refinements in procedural techniques, the application of this technology has now been further expanded to include the management of degenerated bioprosthesis. After the demonstration of feasibility and safety in the management of degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves, mitral and tricuspid bioprosthetic valve treatment is now also well-established and provides an attractive alternative to performing redo surgery. In this review, we appraise the latest clinical evidence and highlight procedural considerations when utilising TAVI technology in the management of degenerated aortic, mitral or tricuspid prosthesis.