Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction

Coronary Risk in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, Overview of Data, Challenges, and Best Practices

Coronary artery obstruction is a rare complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This risk increases in TAVR-valve-in-valve procedure. Several anatomic risk factors were described in many studies to identify the predictive elements of coronary artery occlusion on computed tomography cardiac scan. Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention was the first approach described to treat this complication with a high mortality rate. Later on, preventive chimney stenting technique was evaluated and results showed that is a safe and effective strategy but it leads to a difficult coronary access later. New preventive techniques are being evaluated recently (Basilica and Shorctut).

Coronary Artery Obstruction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Past, Present, and Future

Coronary obstruction (CO) is a rare but critical complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This comprehensive review elucidates the evolving landscape of CO risk assessment and management strategies in the contemporary era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Drawing upon recent advances in computed tomography angiography, we delve into the nuanced evaluation of anatomic parameters crucial for predicting CO risk. Furthermore, this review explores the utility of interventional and surgical techniques, including chimney stenting and leaflet modification systems, in mitigating CO complications. In summary, this review serves as a practical guide for clinicians navigating the complexities of CO prevention and management in the evolving landscape of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes and ensuring procedural success.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR.

METHODS

Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR.

RESULTS

There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Valvular heart disease: from mechanisms to management

Valvular heart disease is common and its prevalence is rapidly increasing worldwide. Effective medical therapies are insufficient and treatment was historically limited to the surgical techniques of valve repair or replacement, resulting in systematic underprovision of care to older patients and those with substantial comorbidities, frailty, or left ventricular dysfunction. Advances in imaging and surgical techniques over the past 20 years have transformed the management of valvular heart disease. Better understanding of the mechanisms and causes of disease and an increasingly extensive and robust evidence base provide a platform for the delivery of individualised treatment by multidisciplinary heart teams working within networks of diagnostic facilities and specialist heart valve centres. In this Series paper, we aim to provide an overview of the current and future management of valvular heart disease and propose treatment approaches based on an understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and the application of multidisciplinary treatment strategies to individual patients.

TAVR-in-TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for paravalvular leak

Introduction

Paravalvular leak (PVL) is a severe complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) that can lead to poor outcomes. TAVR-in-TAVR is a promising treatment for PVL; however, reports on its safety or efficacy are limited. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable prostheses for PVLs after TAVR.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable Sapien prostheses for PVL after an initial TAVR at our institution. The procedural success, in-hospital complications, all-cause mortality, and echocardiographic data for up to 2 years post-surgery were evaluated.

Results

In total, 31 patients with a mean age of 81.1 ± 7.9 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.8 ± 5.4% were identified. The procedural success rate of TAVR-in-TAVR was 96.8% (30/31). No in-hospital deaths, cardiac tamponade, or conversion to sternotomy occurred. Re-intervention was performed in only one patient (3.2%) during hospitalization. The all-cause mortality rates at 30 days and 2 years were 0% and 16.1%, respectively. A significant reduction in the PVL rate was observed at 30 days compared with that at baseline (p < 0.01).

Discussion

Our findings suggest that TAVR-in-TAVR using balloon-expandable prostheses is safe and effective for PVL after TAVR with low complication rates and acceptable long-term outcomes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings.

Valve Type and Operative Risks in Surgical Explantation of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Indication to perform surgical explantation of TAVR is becoming increasingly more frequent, due to the higher number of transcatheter procedures performed in patients with longer life expectancy. We proposed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with metaregression to identify potential factors that can determine an increase in the high mortality and morbidity that characterize these surgical procedures. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for relevant studies. Twelve studies were eligible according to our inclusion criteria. TAVR explantation was confirmed as a procedure with high 30-day mortality (0.17; 95% CI, 0.14-0.21) and morbidity (stroke incidence 5%; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07; kidney injury incidence 16%; 95% CI, 0.11-0.24). The type of transcatheter valve implanted during the index procedure did not influence the outcomes after surgical explantation. The role of these high-risk operations is growing, and it will likely expand in the coming years. Specific tools for risk stratification are required.

Clinical considerations and challenges in TAV-in-TAV procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a viable treatment for aortic valve disease, including low-risk patients. However, as TAVR usage increases, concerns about long-term durability and the potential for addition interventions have arisen. Transcatheter aortic valve (TAV)-in-TAV procedures have shown promise in selected patients in numerous registries, offering a less morbid alternative to TAVR explantation. In this review, the authors aimed to comprehensively review the experience surrounding TAV-in-TAV, summarize available data, discuss pre-procedural planning, highlight associated challenges, emphasize the importance of coronary obstruction assessment and provide insights into the future of this technique.

Lifetime Management of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using mechanical valves has been the preferred treatment for younger patients, but bioprosthetic valves are gaining favour to avoid anticoagulation with warfarin. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in recent years for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in intermediate- and low-risk patients as an alternative to SAVR. The longer life expectancy of these groups of patients might exceed the durability of the TAVR or SAVR bioprosthetic valves. Therefore, many patients need 2 or even 3 interventions during their lifetime. Because it has important implications on the feasibility of subsequent procedures, the decision between opting for SAVR or TAVR as the primary procedure requires thorough consideration by the heart team, incorporating patient preferences, clinical indicators, and anatomic aspects. If TAVR is favoured initially, selecting the valve type and determining the implantation level should be conducted, aiming for positive outcomes in the index intervention and keeping in mind the potential for subsequent TAVR-in-TAVR procedures. When SAVR is selected as the primary procedure, the operator must make choices regarding the valve type and the potential need for aortic root enlargement, with the intention of facilitating future valve-in-valve interventions. This narrative review examines the existing evidence concerning the lifelong management of severe aortic stenosis, delving into available treatment strategies, particularly emphasising the initial procedure's selection and its impact on subsequent interventions.

Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Investigation and Management Options

With the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to younger and lower-surgical-risk patients, many younger and less comorbid patients will be treated with TAVR and are expected to have a life expectancy that will exceed the durability of their transcatheter heart valve. Consequently, the number of patients requiring reintervention will undoubtedly increase in the near future. Redo-TAVR and TAVR explantation followed by surgical aortic valve replacement are the different therapeutic options in the event of bioprosthetic valve failure and the need for reintervention. Patients often anticipate being able to benefit from a redo-TAVR in the event of bioprosthetic valve failure after TAVR, despite the lack of long-term data and the risk of unfavourable anatomy. Our understanding of the feasibility of redo-TAVR is constantly improving thanks to bench test studies and growing worldwide experience. However, much remains unknown. In clinical practice, one of the heart team's objectives is to anticipate the need to reaccess the coronary arteries and implant a second or even a third valve when life expectancy may exceed the durability of the transcatheter heart valve. In this review, we address key definitions in the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, as well as patient selection and procedural planning for redo-TAVR to reduce periprocedural risk, optimise hemodynamic performance, and maintain coronary access. We describe the bench testing and literature in the redo-TAVR and TAVR explantation fields.

Comparison of Mid-Term Prognosis in Intermediate-to-Low-Risk Contemporary Population with Guidelines-Oriented Age Cutoff

BACKGROUND

Current European guidelines support transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in intermediate-to-low-risk patients ≥75 years-old, but its prognostic relevance is unknown.

METHODS

Intermediate-to-low-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <8%) patients enrolled in the HORSE registry were included. We compared the populations aged under 75 with those over 75. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2685 patients were included: 280 (8.6%) < 75 and 2405 ≥ 75 years. Through a mean follow-up of 437 ± 381 days, 198 (8.2%) and 23 (8.2%) patients died in the two arms without statistically significant differences (log-rank p = 0.925). At Cox regression analysis, age did not predict the occurrence of all-cause death, neither as a continuous variable (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.04, p = 0.294) nor dichotomizing according to the prespecified cutoff of 75 years (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63-1.51, p = 0.924). Time-to-event ROC curves showed low accuracy of age to predict all-cause mortality (area under the curve of 0.54 for both 1-year and 2-year outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI has comparable benefits across age strata for intermediate-to-low-risk patients. The age cutoff suggested by the current guidelines is not predictive of the risk of adverse events during hospital stays or of all-cause mortality through a mid-term follow-up.

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.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From Pre-Procedural Planning to Procedural Scenarios and Possible Complications

Over the last decades, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) have been increasingly implanted instead of mechanical valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a common issue at follow-up and can justify the need for a reintervention. In the evolving landscape of interventional cardiology, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a remarkable innovation to address the complex challenges of patients previously treated with SAVR and has rapidly gained prominence as a feasible technique especially in patients at high surgical risk. On the other hand, the expanding indications for TAVR in progressively younger patients with severe aortic stenosis pose the crucial question on the long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), as patients might outlive the bioprosthetic valve. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of ViV TAVR for failed surgical and transcatheter BHVs, with a specific focus on current clinical evidence, pre-procedural planning, procedural techniques, and possible complications. The combination of integrated Heart Team discussion with interventional growth curve makes it possible to achieve best ViV TAVR results and avoid complications or put oneself ahead of time from them.

Assessing Potential Risks of Future Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients

Background

In the Asian cohort, data are limited on the risk for coronary obstruction due to sinus of Valsalva (SOV) sequestration in redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the potential risk for coronary obstruction in simulated redo TAVR in Asian patients.

Methods

Post-TAVR computed tomographic data from 788 patients who received balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) and 334 patients who received self-expanding (SE) Evolut R or Evolut PRO TAVs were analyzed. The risk for coronary obstruction due to SOV sequestration in redo TAVR, defined as the TAV commissure level above the sinotubular junction (STJ) and a TAV-to-STJ distance <2.0 mm in each coronary sinus, was retrospectively evaluated.

Results

The potential risks for coronary obstruction due to SOV sequestration at 1 or both coronary arteries were identified in 52.1% of the BE TAV group and 71.3% of the SE TAV group (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple covariates, STJ diameter, STJ height, TAV oversizing degree by area, and implantation depth were independently associated with SOV sequestration risk in the BE TAV group, whereas STJ diameter and implantation depth were independently associated with SOV sequestration risk in the SE TAV group.

Conclusions

Coronary obstruction due to SOV sequestration in redo TAVR may occur in a substantial number of Asian patients. This finding suggests the importance of considering the structural feasibility of future redo TAVR when implanting the first TAV, especially in Asian patients with long life expectancy.

Early offering transcatheter aortic valve replacement to patients with moderate aortic stenosis: quantifying costs and benefits - a Markov model-based simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common acquired cardiac valvular diseases. The success of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe AS has led to increasing interest in its use to earlier disease-moderate AS (MAS).

DESIGN

Model-based study using a Markov microsimulation technique to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits associated with 'early' TAVI. Key data inputs were sourced from the international literature and costs were obtained from Australian sources.

SETTING

Australian health care system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

10 000 hypothetical MAS patients with or without left ventricular diastolic dysfunction or impaired left ventricular ejection fraction.

INTERVENTION

Comparing early TAVI to medical management over a life time horizon for MAS patients aged >65 years. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of offering early TAVI in five scenarios (10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% take-up rates).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Secondary outcomes are life-years gained and the number of heart failure case avoided.

RESULTS

Offering early TAVI for MAS patients resulted in both higher healthcare costs and greater benefits (an increase of 3.02 QALYs or 3.99 life-years) per person treated. The ICUR was around $A10 867 and $A11 926 per QALY gained for all five scenarios, with the total cost of early TAVI to the healthcare system being anticipated to be up to $A3.66 billion. Sensitivity analyses indicated a 100% probability of being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of $A50 000/QALY. The benefits remained, even with assumptions of high levels of repeat valve replacement after TAVI.

CONCLUSION

While ongoing randomised controlled trials will define the benefit of TAVI to MAS patients, these results suggest that this intervention is likely to be cost-effective.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Surgical Explantation of Failed Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Recent reports have demonstrated worse than expected outcomes of surgical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However in-depth analysis of the short- and mid-term risk of concomitant cardiac surgery at the time of TAVR explant is lacking.

METHODS

Data from the multicenter EXPLANT-TAVR registry of patients undergoing TAVR-explant between November 2009 and September 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were included, but explants performed during the same admission as the initial TAVR or concomitant procedures performed on the aortic root, ascending aorta, or arch were excluded. Outcomes were evaluated between the isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and concomitant SAVR groups. Median follow-up was 6.6 months.

RESULTS

Among 199 patients, concomitant SAVR was performed in 94 patients (47.2%), primarily with mitral valve surgery (n = 45) followed by coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 23). Despite similar mean ages between groups (72.8 vs 73.4 years), concomitant SAVR had a higher median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score at the index TAVR (5.9% vs 3.7%, P = .001). There were no differences in median time-to-explant between groups (12.9 vs 8.7 months, P = .78). However concomitant SAVR had longer mean cardiopulmonary bypass (166 vs 114 minutes, P = .001) and cross-clamp times (123 vs 81 minutes, P = .001). Both 30-day (16.7% vs 9.9%) and 1-year mortality (36.1% vs 22.1%) were higher with concomitant SAVR but did not reach statistical significance (both P > .05). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, actuarial estimates of cumulative survival were significantly lower with concomitant SAVR at 3 years (56.8% vs 81.1%, P = .020).

CONCLUSIONS

For surgical explantation after TAVR failure, concomitant SAVR is associated with increased mortality. Further studies with longer follow-up are warranted to examine the benefit from earlier intervention before concomitant disease develops.

TAVR in TAVR: Where Are We in 2023 for Management of Failed TAVR Valves?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As TAVR is increasingly performed on younger patients with a longer life expectancy, the number of redo-TAVR procedures is likely to increase in the coming years. Limited data is currently available on this sometimes challenging procedure. We provide a summary of currently published literature on management of patients with a failed transcatheter aortic valve.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent registry data have increased the clinical knowledge on redo-TAVR. Additionally, numerous bench studies have provided valuable insights into the technical aspects of redo-TAVR with various combinations of valve types. Redo-TAVR can be performed safely in selected cases with a high procedural success and good short-term outcomes. However, at present, the procedure remains relatively infrequent and many patients are not eligible. Bench testing can be useful to understand important concepts such as valve expansion, neoskirt, leaflet overhang, and leaflet deflection as well as their potential clinical implications.

Challenges and Future Directions in Redo Aortic Valve Reintervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Failure

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Reintervention for failed transcatheter heart valves will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive the initial bioprosthesis. While redo-TAVR has emerged as an attractive and less invasive alternative to surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) to treat transcatheter heart valve failure, it may not be feasible in all patients due to the risk of coronary obstruction and impaired coronary access. Conversely, TAVR-explant can be offered to most patients who are surgical candidates, but the reported outcomes have shown high mortality and morbidity. This review provides the latest evidence, current challenges, and future directions on redo-TAVR and TAVR-explant for transcatheter heart valve failure, to guide aortic valve reintervention and facilitate patients' lifetime management of aortic stenosis.

Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Lotus Mechanically Expanded Transcatheter Heart Valve: Bench-Top Analysis, Clinical Experience, and Procedural Guidance

BACKGROUND

Redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasing as patients outlive their transcatheter heart valves (THVs) and present with bioprosthetic valve failure. The Lotus mechanically expanded THV has unique design characteristics, which have specific implications for Redo TAVI.

METHODS

The design features of the Lotus valve and their relevance to Redo TAVI were reviewed. Bench-top analysis of Redo TAVI was performed using different contemporary THVs. Procedural and outcome data were obtained from 10 patients who had undergone Redo TAVI for Lotus bioprosthetic valve failure in 5 centers. Recommendations for performing Redo TAVI in Lotus are made, based on these findings.

RESULTS

The Lotus leaflets extend from the frame inflow, with a Neoskirt of only 13 mm, hence a low risk of coronary obstruction during Redo TAVI. The Lotus frame posts prevent full apposition of the Redo prosthesis in the upper part of the frame, while implantation of the Redo THV above the Lotus inflow leads to inadequate apposition of the Lotus leaflets. Inflow-to-inflow positioning is therefore recommended for effective sealing and leaflet pinning. The Lotus locking mechanism prevents overexpansion of the frame, limiting Redo THV oversizing. Redo TAVI was favorable with SAPIEN 3, Evolut, and Navitor THVs on bench-top analysis but not with ACURATE Neo 2 due to the upper crowns and short stent preventing inflow-to-inflow deployment. Case review demonstrated satisfactory outcomes in 10 patients treated with Evolut (n=6), SAPIEN 3 (n=3), and Portico (n=1) valves, with no mortality, major morbidity, or coronary obstruction. Three patients had residual mean gradient ≥20 mm Hg, including 2 of 3 SAPIEN cases. Guidance on procedural planning, valve choice, sizing, and positioning is provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo TAVI in Lotus requires an understanding of unique design characteristics, and adherence to key procedural recommendations, but can be safely and effectively performed with most contemporary valve types.

Feasibility of Coronary Access Following Redo-TAVR for Evolut Failure: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging.

METHODS

A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5.

RESULTS

With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.

Feasibility of Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Sapien Valves Based on In Vivo Computed Tomography Assessment

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to assess the feasibility of repeat transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement for degenerated Sapien3 (S3) prostheses by simulating subsequent implantation of S3 or Evolut, using in vivo computed tomography-based sizing and the impact on coronary and patient-prosthesis mismatch risks.

METHODS

Computed tomography scans from 356 patients with prior S3 TAV replacement implantation were analyzed. The in vivo sizing for second TAV based on averaged area of 3 levels of outflow, mid (narrowest) and inflow, was compared with in vitro recommendations, that is, same size as index S3 for second S3 and 1 size larger for Evolut. Risks of coronary obstruction and patient-prosthesis mismatch were determined by valve-to-aorta distance and estimated effective orifice area, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, the majority of patients (n=328; 92.1%) had underexpanded index S3 with an expansion area of 94% (91%-97%), leading to significant differences in size selection of the second TAV between in vivo and in vitro sizing strategies. Expansion area <89% served as a threshold, resulting in 1 size smaller than the in vitro recommendations were selected in 45 patients (13%) for S3-in-S3 and 13 (4%) for Evolut-in-S3, while the remaining patients followed in vitro recommendations (P<0.01, in vivo versus in vitro sizing). Overall, 57% of total patients for S3-in-S3 simulation and 60% for Evolut-in-S3 were considered low risk for coronary complications. Deep index S3 implantation (odds ratio, 0.76 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.001) and selecting Evolut as the second TAV (11% risk reduction in intermediate- or high-risk patients) reduced coronary risk. Estimated moderate or severe patient-prosthesis mismatch risk was 21% for S3-in-S3 and 1% for Evolut-in-S3, assuming optimal expansion of the second TAV.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo-TAV replacement with S3-in-S3 and Evolut-in-S3 could be feasible with low risk to coronaries in ≈60% of patients, while the remaining 40% will be at intermediate or high risk. The feasibility of redo-TAV replacement is influenced by sizing strategy, type of second TAV, native annular anatomy, and implant depth.

Outcomes of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves: a registry study

BACKGROUND

With increasing numbers of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), data on management of failed TAVR, including repeat TAVR procedure, are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of redo-TAVR in a national registry.

METHODS

This study included all consecutive patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry from Nov 9, 2011, to Dec 30, 2022 who underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves in failed transcatheter heart valves (redo-TAVR) or native aortic valves (native-TAVR). Procedural, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR cohorts using propensity score matching.

FINDINGS

Among 350 591 patients (1320 redo-TAVR; 349 271 native-TAVR), 1320 propensity-matched pairs of patients undergoing redo-TAVR and native-TAVR were analysed (redo-TAVR cohort: mean age 78 years [SD 9]; 559 [42·3%] of 1320 female, 761 [57·7%] male; mean predicted surgical risk of 30-day mortality 8·1%). The rates of procedural complications of redo-TAVR were low (coronary compression or obstruction: four [0·3%] of 1320; intraprocedural death: eight [0·6%] of 1320; conversion to open heart surgery: six [0·5%] of 1319) and similar to native-TAVR. There was no significant difference between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR populations in death at 30 days (4·7% vs 4·0%, p=0·36) or 1 year (17·5% vs 19·0%, p=0·57), and stroke at 30 days (2·0% vs 1·9%, p=0·84) or 1 year (3·2% vs 3·5%, p=0·80). Redo-TAVR reduced aortic valve gradients at 1 year, although they were higher in the redo-TAVR group compared with the native-TAVR group (15 mm Hg vs 12 mm Hg; p<0·0001). Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation rates were similar between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR groups at 1 year (1·8% vs 3·3%, p=0·18). Death or stroke after redo-TAVR were not significantly affected by the timing of redo-TAVR (before or after 1 year of index TAVR), or by index transcatheter valve type (balloon-expandable or non-balloon-expandable).

INTERPRETATION

Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves effectively treated dysfunction of the index TAVR procedure with low procedural complication rates, and death and stroke rates similar to those in patients with a similar clinical profile and predicted risk undergoing TAVR for native aortic valve stenosis. Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves might be a reasonable treatment for failed TAVR in selected patients.

FUNDING

Edwards Lifesciences.

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.

In-Series Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-in-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: ACURATE neo Transcatheter Heart Valve Degeneration Successfully Managed with Myval, Avoiding Coronary Flow Obstruction-A Case Report

•Durability is vital for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in younger patients.•Aortic insufficiency is one of the features of structural valve degeneration.•Degenerated ACURATE neo can be treated with low implantation of an oversized Myval.

Redo-TAVR: Essential Concepts, Updated Data and Current Gaps in Evidence

Within the last two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the treatment strategy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), representing a less invasive alternative to traditional open-chest surgery. With time, advances in device features, imaging planning, and implantation techniques have contributed to an improvement in safety as well as a reduction in procedural complications. This has led to the expansion of TAVR to lower-risk patients, where TAVR has shown favorable outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As TAVR expands to younger and lower-risk patients with longer life expectancies, the need for reintervention for failing transcatheter heart valves is expected to increase. Redo-TAVR has gained increasing relevance in the lifetime management of AS as one of the treatment strategies available for structural valve dysfunction (SVD). However, some issues are associated with this approach, including coronary re-access and the risk of coronary obstruction. In this review, we provide essential concepts to properly select candidates for Redo-TAVR, updated data on clinical outcomes and complication rates, and current gaps in evidence.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated transcatheter bioprosthesis (TAV-in-TAV)

INTRODUCTION

With the expanding indications of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to younger and low-risk patients, the life expectancy of patients currently undergoing TAVR will likely outlive the durability of transcatheter bioprosthesis. Consequently, the number of failed transcatheter bioprosthesis requiring surgical valve explant or redo TAVR is expected to increase.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to provide an updated overview of redo TAVR for treating degenerated transcatheter bioprosthesis, focusing on pre-procedural planning, potential challenges of coronary reaccess during TAVR-in-TAVR and main outcomes of TAVR explant and redo TAVR.

EXPERT OPINION

Patient-tailored device selection and individualized implantation height should be carefully assessed during the index TAVR procedure (weighting between pacemaker avoidance and the potential risk of coronary occlusion in future TAVR-in-TAVR). Future prospective studies comparing safety and clinical outcomes between redo TAVR vs TAVR explant are eagerly awaited.

Trends in surgical aortic valve replacement in pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement eras at a structural heart center

Background

The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has directly impacted the lifelong management of patients with aortic valve disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved TAVR for all surgical risk: prohibitive (2011), high (2012), intermediate (2016), and low (2019). Since then, TAVR volumes are increasing and surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) are decreasing. This study sought to evaluate trends in isolated SAVR in the pre- and post-TAVR eras.

Methods

From January 2000 to June 2020, 3,861 isolated SAVRs were performed at a single academic quaternary care institution which participated in the early trials of TAVR beginning in 2007. A formal structural heart center was established in 2012 when TAVR became commercially available. Patients were divided into the pre-TAVR era (2000-2011, n = 2,426) and post-TAVR era (2012-2020, n = 1,435). Data from the institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database was analyzed.

Results

The median age was 66 years, similar between groups. The post-TAVR group had a statistically higher rate of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart failure, more reoperative SAVR, and lower STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) (2.0% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.0001). There were more urgent/emergent/salvage SAVRs (38% vs. 24%) and fewer elective SAVRs (63% vs. 76%), (p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR group. More bioprosthetic valves were implanted in the post-TAVR group (85% vs. 74%, p < 0.0001). Larger aortic valves were implanted (25 vs. 23 mm, p < 0.0001) and more annular enlargements were performed (5.9% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR era. Postoperatively, the post-TAVR group had less blood product transfusion (49% vs. 58%, p < 0.0001), renal failure (1.4% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.0001), pneumonia (2.3% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), shorter lengths of stay, and lower in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.0007).

Conclusion

The approval of TAVR changed the landscape of aortic valve disease management. At a quaternary academic cardiac surgery center with a well-established structural heart program, patients undergoing isolated SAVR in the post-TAVR era had lower STS PROM, more implantation of bioprosthetic valves, utilization of larger valves, annular enlargement, and lower in-hospital mortality. Isolated SAVR continues to be performed in the TAVR era with excellent outcomes. SAVR remains an essential tool in the lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

A bench study of balloon-expandable valves for the treatment of self-expanding valve failure

BACKGROUND

Coronary obstruction and access are concerns in patients undergoing redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

AIMS

We sought to assess the neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, leaflet deflection,and transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and performance, at 2 different implant depths, of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra (S3U) within the ACURATE neo2 (ACn2) THV.

METHODS

An in vitro study was performed with a 23 mm S3U deployed within a small (S) ACn2 and a 26 mm S3U deployed within a medium (M) and a large (L) ACn2. The S3U outflow was positioned at the top of the ACn2 crown (low implant) and at the base of the commissural post of the ACn2 (high implant). Testing was performed under physiological conditions as per ISO-5840-3 standard.

RESULTS

The neoskirt height was shorter when the S3U outflow was positioned at a low implantation depth (S: 9.6 mm, M: 12.2 mm, L: 13.8 mm vs S: 15.2 mm, M: 15.1 mm, L: 17.8 mm ACn2 for high implants). Hydrodynamic performance was acceptable for all configurations. Leaflet overhang was <50% for all configurations except the low implant of the 26 mm S3U in the L ACn2 (77.6%). There was a gap from the side of the neoskirt to the outer border of the THV frame which was >2 mm for all configurations. The S3U was underexpanded for all configurations, and the achieved area was 77.9%-92.9% of the expected nominal area.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo TAVI with an S3U within an ACn2 has favourable hydrodynamics and moderate leaflet overhang. Importantly, the design of the ACn2 results in a neoskirt that is not deflected all the way to the outer dimensions of the THV, hence creating a space that facilitates coronary flow and access.

Management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in collaboration with the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery

Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) is a frequent finding in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), and the management of these two conditions becomes of particular importance with the extension of the procedure to younger and lower-risk patients. Yet, the preprocedural diagnostic evaluation and the indications for treatment of significant CAD in TAVI candidates remain a matter of debate. In this clinical consensus statement, a group of experts from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery aims to review the available evidence on the topic and proposes a rationale for the diagnostic evaluation and indications for percutaneous revascularisation of CAD in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter treatment. Moreover, it also focuses on commissural alignment of transcatheter heart valves and coronary re-access after TAVI and redo-TAVI.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry

BACKGROUND

Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown.

METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis-patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis-patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Prior Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR.

METHODS

Data on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed.

RESULTS

Of 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Call for Action

We aimed to systematically analyze the literature on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat active aortic valve infective endocarditis (AV-IE). Surgery is declined in one-third of patients with IE who meet indications because of prohibitive surgical risk. TAVR might be an alternative for selected patients with AV-IE as a bridge-to-surgery or stand-alone therapy. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (2002-2022) for studies on TAVR use in active AV-IE. Of 450 identified reports, six met inclusion criteria (all men, mean age 71 ± 12 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score 27, EuroSCORE 56). All patients were prohibitive surgical risk candidates. Five out of six patients had severe, and one patient had moderate aortic regurgitation on presentation. Five out of six patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis after surgical valve replacement 13 years before (median), and one patient had TAVR a year before hospitalization. All patients had cardiogenic shock as the indication for TAVR. Four patients received balloon-expanding, and two patients received self-expanding TAVR after a median of 19 (IQR 9-25) days from diagnosis of IE. No death or myocardial infarction occurred, but one patient had a stroke within the first 30 days. The median event-free time was 9 (IQR 6-14) months including no death, reinfection, relapse IE, or valve-related rehospitalization. Our review suggests that TAVR can be considered as an adjuvant therapy to medical treatment for selected patients in whom surgery is indicated for treatment of acute heart failure due to aortic valve destruction and incompetence caused by infective endocarditis, but who have a prohibitive surgical risk. Nonetheless, a well-designed prospective registry is urgently needed to investigate the outcomes of TAVR for this off-label indication. No evidence exists for using the TAVR to treat infection-related surgical indications such as uncontrolled infection or control of septic embolization.

Aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there are scant data regarding aortic valve reintervention after initial TAVR.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2019, 1487 patients underwent a TAVR at the University of Michigan. Among these, 24 (1.6%) patients required an aortic valve reintervention. Additionally, 4 patients who received a TAVR at another institution underwent a valve reintervention at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed these 28 patients.

RESULTS

The median age was 72 years, 36% were female and 86% of implanted TAVR devices were self-expandable. The leading indications for reintervention were structural valve degeneration (39%) and paravalvular leak (36%). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 4.6% at 8 years. Most (71%) were deemed unsuitable for repeat TAVR because of the need for concurrent cardiac procedures (50%), unfavorable anatomy (45%), or endocarditis (10%). TAVR valve explant was associated with frequent concurrent procedures, consisting of aortic repair (35%), mitral repair/replacement (35%), tricuspid repair (25%), and coronary artery bypass graft (20%). Seventy-one percent of aortic procedures were unplanned but proved necessary because of severe adhesion of the devices to the contacting tissue. There were 3 (15%) in-hospital mortalities in the TAVR valve explant group, whereas there was no mortality in the repeat TAVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat TAVR procedure was frequently not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy and/or the need for concurrent cardiac procedures. Careful assessment of TAVR procedure repeatability should be weighed at the initial TAVR workup especially in younger patients who are expected to require a valve reintervention.

Contemporary issues and lifetime management in patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Latest clinical trials have indicated favorable outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, there are unanswered questions particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancy. While current evidence are limited to short duration of clinical follow-up, there are certain factors which may impair patients clinical outcomes and quality-of-life at long-term. Contemporary issues in the current TAVR era include prosthesis-patient mismatch, heart failure hospitalization, subclinical thrombosis, future coronary access, and valve durability. In this review, the authors review available evidence and discuss each remaining issues and theoretical treatment strategies in lifetime management of TAVR patients.

Valvular Heart Disease: New Concepts in Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Approaches

This review discusses recent advancements in the field of valvular heart disease. Topics covered include recognition of the impact of atrial fibrillation on development and assessment of valvular disease, strategies for global prevention of rheumatic heart disease, understanding and management of secondary mitral regurgitation, the updated classification of bicuspid aortic valve disease, recognition of heightened cardiovascular risk associated with moderate aortic stenosis, and a growing armamentarium of transcatheter therapies.

Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation with the ALLEGRA Transcatheter Heart Valve: Insights from Bench Testing

PURPOSE

Failure of transcatheter heart valves (THV) may potentially be treated with repeat transcatheter aortic valve implantation (redo TAVI). We assessed hydrodynamic performance, stability and pinwheeling utilizing the ALLEGRA (New Valve Technology, Hechingen, Germany) THV, a CE approved and marketed THV in Europe, inside different THVs.

METHODS

Redo TAVI was simulated with the 27 mm ALLEGRA THV at three implantation depths (-4 mm, 0 mm and +4 mm) in seven different 'failed' THVs: 26 mm Evolut Pro, 25 mm Lotus, 25 mm JenaValve, 25 mm Portico, 23 mm Sapien 3, 27 mm ALLEGRA and M ACURATE neo. Hydrodynamic evaluation was performed according to International Standards Organization 5840-3:2021.

RESULTS

The ALLEGRA THV was stable with acceptable performance (gradient <20 mmHg, effective orifice area >2 cm², and regurgitant fraction <20%) in all 'failed' THVs except the Evolut Pro at -4 mm implantation depth. In this configuration, the outflow of the ALLEGRA frame was constrained by the Evolut Pro THV and the ALLEGRA leaflets were unable to fully close. Pinwheeling was severe for the ALLEGRA in Evolut Pro. The neo-skirt was higher with taller frame THVs.

CONCLUSION

The ALLEGRA THV had favorable hydrodynamic performance, stability and pinwheeling in all redo TAVI samples except the Evolut Pro at low implantation depth with compromised function. The choice of initial THV may have late implications on new THV choice and function.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Given the longer life expectancy of these patients, the bioprosthetic valve will eventually fail, and aortic valve reintervention may be necessary. Although currently rare, redo-TAVR will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive their transcatheter bioprosthesis. This review provides a contemporary overview of the indications, procedural planning, implantation technique, and outcomes of TAVR in failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Thrombosis and Literature Review

An 83-year-old gentleman with a history of 23-mm Hancock-II-bioprosthetic aortic valve (BAV) replacement ten-years prior presented with symptoms of dyspnea and lower extremity edema. During the preceding seven-years, he had been noted to have asymptomatic increased mean transvalvular gradients (MG; 36–50 mmHg) felt to be due to either early bioprosthetic degeneration, pannus formation, or patient–prosthesis mismatch. An echocardiogram at the time of symptom development demonstrated significant flow acceleration through the aortic valve, mild regurgitation, and severely increased MG (48 mmHg) with prolonged acceleration time (AT, 140 msec). A trial of warfarin anticoagulation resulted in dramatic improvement after only 6 weeks with laminar flow through the AV, near-total resolution of regurgitation, and a decrease in MG to 14 mmHg and AT to 114 msec. These findings strongly suggest that BAV thrombosis was the predominant mechanism responsible for the longstanding high MG. Our case highlights that BAV thrombosis should be considered in the differential of elevated gradients regardless of the age of prosthesis, and that a trial of warfarin anticoagulation may be beneficial even if elevated gradients have been present for a prolonged period. Valvular gradients are often abnormal long before a formal diagnosis; however, these may reverse quickly with anticoagulation therapy.

Lifetime management of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a computed tomography simulation study

BACKGROUND

Given enough time, transcatheter heart valves (THVs) will degenerate and may require reintervention. Redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an attractive strategy but carries a risk of coronary obstruction.

AIMS

We sought to predict how many TAVIs patients could undergo in their lifetime using computed tomography (CT) simulation.

METHODS

We analysed paired CT scans (baseline and 30 days post-TAVI) from patients in the LRT trial and EPROMPT registry. We implanted virtual THVs on baseline CTs, comparing predicted valve-to-coronary (VTC) distances to 30-day CT VTC distances to evaluate the accuracy of CT simulation. We then simulated implantation of a second virtual THV within the first to estimate the risk of coronary obstruction due to sinus sequestration and the need for leaflet modification.

RESULTS

We included 213 patients with evaluable paired CTs. There was good agreement between virtual (baseline) and actual (30 days) CT measurements. CT simulation of TAVI followed by redo TAVI predicted low coronary obstruction risk in 25.4% of patients and high risk, likely necessitating leaflet modification, in 27.7%, regardless of THV type. The remaining 46.9% could undergo redo TAVI so long as the first THV was balloon-expandable but would likely require leaflet modification if the first THV was self-expanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Using cardiac CT simulation, it is possible to predict whether a patient can undergo multiple TAVI procedures in their lifetime. Those who cannot may prefer to undergo surgery first. CT simulation could provide a personalised lifetime management strategy for younger patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and inform decision-making.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT02628899; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03557242; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03423459.