Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Rationale, Patient Selection, Technique, and Outcomes

Optimizing Valve Selection in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Case Study on Addressing Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Early Structural Valve Deterioration in a Morbidly Obese Patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a fundamental approach for treating aortic valve stenosis (AVS), especially in high surgical risk patients. This case study underscores the criticality of meticulous procedural planning and precise valve selection in patients with severe AVS compounded by obesity. We report a case of a patient who, after receiving a 26 mm Edwards Sapiens 3 valve, presented with worsening exertional dyspnea and a declining indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). This deterioration indicated early structural valve deterioration (SVD), presumably due to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). A subsequent valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR using a 29 mm Medtronic Evolut Fx valve was successfully executed, leading to a notable improvement in EOAi. This case study emphasizes the complexities inherent in valve choice and sizing in TAVR, particularly highlighting the impact of PPM on obese patients and its potential to precipitate early SVD. The report further explores the emerging strategies in addressing TAVR valve dysfunctions via ViV interventions, shedding light on the nuanced and dynamic nature of TAVR management in obese patients. It advocates for tailored treatment strategies in managing such intricate cases, demonstrating the evolving landscape of TAVR procedures.

Management of Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Mitigating Complications and Optimizing Outcomes

The use of bioprosthetic prostheses during surgical aortic valve replacements has increased dramatically over the last two decades, accounting for over 85% of surgical implantations. Given limited long-term durability, there has been an increase in aortic valve reoperations and reinterventions. With the advent of new technologies, multiple treatment strategies are available to treat bioprosthetic valve failure, including valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, ViV TAVR has an increased risk of higher gradients and patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) secondary to placing the new valve within the rigid frame of the prior valve, especially in patients with a small surgical bioprosthesis in situ. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows for placement of a larger transcatheter valve, as well as a fully expanded transcatheter valve, decreasing postoperative gradients and the risk of PPM.

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.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes

AIMS

We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized the nationally weighted 2012-16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.78) compared to re-SAVR.

CONCLUSION

In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.