Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Replacement for Degenerated Stentless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Interventional versus Surgical Treatment of Degenerated Freestyle Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

 Bioprosthetic stentless aortic valves may degenerate over time and will require replacement. This study aimed to evaluate early- and mid-term outcomes after isolated surgical redo aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) and transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (TAVI-VIV) for degenerated stentless Freestyle bioprostheses.

METHODS

 We reviewed records of 56 patients at a single center. Overall, 37 patients (66.1%) received TAVI-VIV and 19 (33.9%) received redo-SAVR.

RESULTS

 Thirty-day survival was similar in both groups (100%). One-year survival was comparable between groups (97.3% in TAVI-VIV and 100% in redo-SAVR, p = 1.0). The difference in mid-term survival after adjusting for age and EuroScore II was not significant (p = 0.41). The incidence of pacemaker implantation after TAVI-VIV was higher than after redo-SAVR (19.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

 The 30-day and 1-year survival rates after both procedures were outstanding, irrespective of baseline characteristics. Isolated redo-SAVR should be favored in young patients, as the pacemaker implantation rate is lower. TAVI-VIV for degenerated Freestyle prosthesis can be a method of choice in elderly patients and those with high operative risk.

A case of a transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using balloon expandable valve for failed SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve

A 74-year-old man who had undergone surgical aortic valve replacement with the SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve 25 mm (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) and mitral valve replacement with MOSAIC 29 mm (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) 4 years previously was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and transferred to our hospital. Echocardiography revealed severe aortic regurgitation caused by degraded bioprosthetic valve. He required continuous dobutamine administration to maintain hemodynamics. As a result of heart team discussion, we decided to perform transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) using balloon expandable valve (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA). Since SOLO SMART stentless valve was placed to Valsalva sinus at the supra-annular level with continuous sutures, we planned to anchor TAVI valve 4 mm to the left ventricular side from the bottom of the failed stentless valve. Two pigtail catheters were placed at the bottom of the failed stentless valve leaflet to mark the nadir of stentless valve. After ViV-TAVI, the patient no longer required catecholamine administration and was discharged home one month later. This is the first case of ViV-TAVI using balloon expandable valve for failed SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve in a Japanese patient.

Learning objective

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) for stentless valves is known to be technically challenging due to poor fluoroscopic visibility. Because the SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve is sutured to the wall of the sinus of Valsalva above the annulus, the landing point of transcatheter heart valve is at a native annulus which is lower than the bottom of the SOLO SMART leaflet. We describe the first Japanese case of ViV-TAVI with balloon expandable valve for the SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve for a patient with repeated healed endocarditis: a case report

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter valve replacement is contraindicated in patients with active infective endocarditis. However, few reports suggest that it could be beneficial for high-risk surgical patients with healed infective endocarditis. Here, we report a case of a surgical transcatheter aortic valve in a patient with healed repeated prosthetic valve endocarditis using a stentless valve.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 79-year-old female who underwent the Bentall procedure using a stentless valve and coronary artery bypass grafting for annuloaortic ectasia 22 years ago was hospitalized for stage II bioprosthetic valve failure. The patient had a history of prosthetic valve endocarditis three times: the first and second prosthetic valve endocarditis occurred 15 years ago, and the third prosthetic valve endocarditis occurred 3 years ago. The causative organisms were Campylobacter fetus and Enterococcus faecalis. With appropriate antibiotic therapy, the lesion was localized and healed completely without valve destruction; however, the patient developed rapid aortic regurgitation. Based on a review of the patient's history of prosthetic valve endocarditis, the absence of signs of infection, and clinical findings of transesophageal echocardiography and computed tomography, a diagnosis of structural valve deterioration with healed infective endocarditis was made. Subsequently, a transcatheter aortic valve in a surgical aortic valve using a balloon-expandable type was performed, because the patient had a high surgical risk of 12.7%. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. At the 1-year follow-up, there were no signs of infection or valve abnormalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter valve replacement can be a treatment option for high-risk surgical patients with healed limited lesions in infective endocarditis.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation within stentless landing zones: Procedural insights from a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive therapeutic option compared with redo surgical valve replacement for high-risk patients. Relative to procedures within stented surgical valves, VIV-TAVI within stentless valves is associated with a higher complication rate due to challenging underlying anatomy and absence of fluoroscopic landmarks.

AIMS

We share a single-center experience with VIV-TAVI in stentless valves, discussing our procedural insights and associated outcomes.

METHODS

Our institutional database was queried, and 25 patients who had undergone VIV-TAVI within a stentless bioprosthesis, homograft, or valve-sparing aortic root replacement between 2013 and 2022 were found. Outcome endpoints were based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 69.5 ± 13.6 years. VIV implantation was performed within a homograft in 11 patients, a stentless bioprothesis in 10 patients, and a valve-sparing aortic root replacement in 4 patients. Nineteen (76%) balloon-expandable valves, 5 (20%) self-expanding valves, and one mechanically-expandable (4%) valve were implanted with 100% procedural success, with no instances of significant paravalvular leak, coronary occlusion, or device embolization. There was one (4%) in-hospitality mortality after an emergency procedure; one (4%) patient experienced a transient ischemic attack; and two (8%) patients required permanent pacemaker implantation. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days. After a median follow-up time of 16.5 months, valve function was acceptable in all patients with available data.

CONCLUSION

VIV-TAVI within stentless valves can be safely performed with methodical procedural technique and can provide clinical benefit in patients at high reoperation risk.

Degenerated BioBentall graft with failing stentless bioprosthesis and dissection of the aortic conduit treated with a bail-out valve in valve procedure: a case report

Background

The Bentall procedure is commonly performed to treat combined aortic valve and ascending aorta disease requiring surgical correction. Although the technique has been shown to provide favourable long-term outcomes, both the valvular prosthesis and the aortic conduit can go through structural degeneration. Increasing use of the biological prosthesis opened to percutaneous treatment of valvular deterioration according to a valve-in-valve (ViV) technique. On the contrary, damages of the tube graft are normally referred to repeated surgical operation.

Case summary

In the present case, a patient with a biological Bentall graft was diagnosed with severely deteriorated stentless aortic prosthesis and dissection of the conduit arising from a tube wall tear closely located to the valvular plane. The attempted redo surgery was technically unfeasible because of severe mediastinal adhesions; therefore, a ViV procedure with a balloon expandable transcatheter heart valve was performed in order to contemporarily treat the valve prothesis dysfunction and the aortic tube dissection. No procedure-related complications occurred and subsequent aortic computed tomography angiography showed the sealing of the graft wall false lumen.

Discussion

Surgical reintervention remains the treatment of choice for degeneration of a previous Bentall surgery, especially when damages of the aortic conduit exist. Nevertheless, when surgery has to be discarded, ViV can be a reliable option as a bail-out strategy to deal with combined aortic valve dysfunction and tube dissection.

Transcatether Aortic Valve Implantation to Treat Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: Focus on the Specific Procedural Challenges

Actually transcatheter aortic valve implantation within failed surgically bioprosthetic valves (VIV-TAVI) is an established procedure in patients at high risk for repeat surgical aortic valve intervention. Although less invasive than surgical reintervention, VIV-TAVI procedure offers potential challenges, such as higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction. Thus, optimal procedural planning plays an important role to minimize the risk of procedure complications. In this review, we describe the key points of a VIV-TAVI procedure to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of procedure complications.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis: A systematic review

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve in valve (Aviv) replacement has been shown to be an effective therapeutic option in patients with failed aortic bioprosthetic valves. This review intended to evaluate contemporary 1-year outcomes of Aviv in recent studies.

Methods:

A systematic review on outcomes of Aviv was performed using the best available evidence from studies obtained using a MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS search. Endpoints of interest were survival, coronary artery obstruction, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), stroke, pacemaker implantation, and structural valve deterioration.

Results:

A total of 3339 patients from 23 studies were included. Mean age was 68–80 years, 20%–50% were female, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.7 to 31.1. Thirty-day all-cause mortality ranged from 2% to 8%, and 1-year all-cause mortality ranged from 8% to 33%. Coronary artery obstruction risk after Aviv ranged from 0.6% to 4%. One-year stroke ranged from 2% to 8%. Moderate-severe PPM occurred in 11%–58%, and pacemaker rate at 1 year ranged from 5% to 12%.

Conclusion:

Transcatheter aortic ViV has emerged as an effective therapeutic option to treat patients with failed bioprostheses. The acceptable complication rate and favorable 1-year outcomes make Aviv an appropriate alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

Outcomes after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using a balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien valve in patients with degenerated Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV TAVI) in degenerated Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis (FSB) has been reported as being technically challenging. This study sought to evaluate procedural data and outcomes after ViV TAVI using a balloon-expandable Edwards valve in patients with failed FSB.

Methods

Between August 2014 and December 2020, twenty-seven consecutive patients underwent ViV TAVI for symptomatic FSB failure at our institution using a Sapien XT (n=1) and Sapien 3 (n=26) valve, respectively. Endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria and were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Mean patient age was 75.7±8.2 years (female n=5, male n=22); Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.3%±6.2%. ViV implantation with correct positioning of the Edwards Sapien valve within the FSB was successful in all cases. Intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography revealed none/trace paravalvular regurgitation in twenty-five patients (92.6%), mild paravalvular regurgitation was present in two patients (7.4%). Neither of the patients had a mean gradient ≥20.0 mmHg excluding significant patient-prosthesis mismatch. Three early deaths (≤thirty days) occurred resulting in a device success rate of 88.8%. One-year and three-year survival rates for patients alive beyond day thirty after ViV TAVI were 95.8% and 70.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

ViV TAVI with Edwards Sapien valves lead to acceptable functional results in high-risk patients with degenerated FSB but early complications must be considered particularly during hospital stay.

Predictors of Procedural Success in Patients With Degenerated Surgical Valves Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation

Background: Valve-in-Valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is a growing alternative for redo-surgery in patients with degenerated surgical valves. To our knowledge, data are lacking on the determinants on ViV-TAVI procedural success in patients with degenerated surgical valves.

Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for degenerated surgical valves at the Cleveland Clinic were analyzed. Data were extracted from our patient registry on baseline patient characteristics, echocardiographic parameters, and procedural details. To identify possible predictors of ViV-TAVI procedural success, we employed a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results: A total of 186 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI were analyzed, with procedural success (VARC-2 device success and absence of periprocedural MACCE) reported in 165 (88.7%) patients. Patients with successful ViV-TAVI were significantly younger and had more frequent utilization of the transfemoral access than those with failed procedure. Other baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between both groups. In terms of echocardiographic parameters, the procedural success group had a significantly lower AV peak pressure gradient (62.1 ± 24.7 vs. 74.1 ± 34.6 mmHg; p = 0.04) and lower incidence of moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation [AR] (30.4 vs. 55%; p = 0.04). However, no significant differences between both groups were noted in terms of AV mean pressure gradient and left ventricular measurements. In multivariate analysis, lower AV peak pressure gradient (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99) and absence of moderate-to-severe AR (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.95) at baseline emerged as independent predictors of ViV-TAVI procedural success.

Conclusion: Valve-in-Valve TAVI for degenerated surgical valves is a feasible approach with high success rates, especially in those with lower AV peak pressure gradient and absence of moderate-to-severe AR. Studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to further characterize the predictors of ViV-TAVI success and other clinical outcomes.

Redo-aortic valve replacement in prior stentless prosthetic aortic valves: Transcatheter versus surgical approach

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to compare outcomes of redo-aortic valve replacement (AVR) via surgical or transcatheter approach in prior surgical AVR with large percentage of prior stentless surgical AVR.

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), patients with increased surgical risks now have an alternative to redo surgical AVR (SAVR), known as valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR. Stentless prosthetic aortic valves present a more challenging implantation for ViV-TAVR given the lack of structural frame.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 173 subjects who have undergone SAVR (N = 100) or ViV-TAVR (N = 73) in patients with prior surgical AVR at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from 2009 to 2019. Our study received the proper ethical oversight.

RESULTS

The average ages in redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVR groups were 58.03 ± 13.86 and 66.57 ± 13.44 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). The redo-SAVR had significantly lower STS (2.78 ± 2.09 and 4.68 ± 5.51, p < 0.01) and Euroscores (4.32 ± 2.98 and 7.51 ± 8.24, p < 0.05). The redo-SAVR group had higher percentage requiring mechanical support (8% vs. 0%, p < 0.05) and vasopressors (53% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), longer length of stay (13.65 ± 11.23 vs. 5.68 ± 7.64 days, p < 0.0001), and inpatient mortality (16% vs. 2.78%, p < 0.005). At 30-day follow-up, redo-SAVR group had higher rates of acute kidney injury (10% vs. 0%, p < 0.01), however ViV-TAVR group had more new left bundle branch blocks (6.85% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). No significant differences regarding re-hospitalization rates, stroke, or death up to 1-year.

CONCLUSION

Although the ViV-TAVR group had higher risk patients, there were significantly fewer procedural complications, shorter length of stay, and similar mortality outcomes up to 1-year follow-up.

The role of CT in planning percutaneous structural heart interventions: Where to measure and why

As research continues to demonstrate successes in the use of percutaneous trans-vascular techniques in structural heart intervention, both the subspecialty trained and non-subspecialty trained cardiac imager find themselves performing and reporting larger amounts of information regarding cardiovascular findings. It is therefore imperative that the imager gains understanding and appreciation for how these various measurements are obtained, as well as their implication in a patient's care. Cardiac gated computed tomography (CT) has solidified its role and ability at providing high resolution images that can be used to obtain the key measurements used in structural heart intervention planning. This manuscript aims to provide an overview of what measurements are necessary to report when interpreting CT examinations purposed for structural heart intervention. This includes a review on indications and brief discussion on complications related to these procedures.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Coronary Obstruction Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

There is scant information about the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of coronary obstruction (CO) following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). A meta-analysis of the published studies from January 2000 to April 2020 was conducted, and the endpoint was CO. A total of 2858 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 77.7 ± 9.8, and 39.9% of them were female. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), and Logistic EuroSCORE were 8.9 ± 7.8, 16.0 ± 10.9, and 26.3 ± 16.3, respectively. The overall incidence of CO was 2.58%. CO incidence between patients with prior stented and stentless valves were significantly different (1.67% versus 7.17%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.25 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.14-0.44 (P < 0.00001). The first-generation valves were significantly associated with higher CO incidence compared with the second-generation valves (7.09% versus 2.03%; OR, 2.44; 95%CI, 1.06-5.62; P = 0.04), while no statistical difference was found between self-expandable valves and balloon-expandable valves (2.45% versus 2.60%; OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.55-1.79; P = 0.98). Virtual transcatheter to coronary ostia (VTC) distance (3.3 ± 2.1 mm, n = 29 versus 5.8 ± 2.4 mm, n = 169; mean difference, -2.70; 95%CI, -3.46 to -1.95; P < 0.00001) and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter (27.5 ± 3.8 mm, n = 23 versus 32.3 ± 4.0 mm, n = 101; mean difference, -3.80; 95%CI, -6.55 to -1.05; P = 0.007) were enormously shorter in patients with CO. The 24-hour, in-hospital, and 30-day mortality of patients with CO were 10.5%, 30.8%, and 37.1%, respectively. In conclusion, device selections, VTC distances, and SOV diameters may be important factors in assessing the CO risk in VIV-TAVR.

Structural valve deterioration and mode of failure of stentless bioprosthetic valves

BACKGROUND

Aortic stentless bioprosthetic valve (SLBPV), either porcine or pericardial, minimizes transvalvular gradient and favors regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. The drawback consists of longer time for suturing. While structural valve deterioration (SVD) in stented porcine and pericardial BPVs has been extensively investigated, less information is available on SLBPVs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied 82 SLBPVs explants, either porcine (Toronto SPV, [St. Jude Medical, MN, USA], CryolifeO'Brien Model 300 and CryoLife-O'Brien [Cryolife International, GA, USA], BioCor PVS [St. Jude Medical, MN, USA] Prima and Prima Plus [Edwards Lifesciences Corp. One Edwards Way, CA, formerly Baxter Inc, CA, USA]) or pericardial ([Pericarbon Freedom and Freedom Solo [Sorin-Biomedica, S.p.A., Saluggia, Italy]).

RESULTS

By excluding cases with leak and endocarditis, we focused the investigation on 46 SLBPVs, which failed because of SVD. Gender was male in 29 (63%). Mean age of patients at time of implant was 59.8 years. Postoperative time of SVD was 115.0 months for porcine and 79.0 months for pericardial SLBPVs. Dysfunction requiring reoperation was mainly incompetence for porcine and stenosis for pericardial SLBPVs. Even pinpoint mineralization at the commissures resulted in sudden cusp tearing and incompetence. Cuspal atheromasia accounted for cusp tearing even in the absence of calcification. Mineralization showed progression with time in pericardial but not in porcine SLBPVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue mineralization remains the nightmare also of SLBPVs, with the peculiar features of pinpoint calcific deposits at commissures, tearing and abrupt incompetence in porcine SLBPVs and of massive cuspal mineralization and stenosis in pericardial SLBPVs.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves

AIMS

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence regarding the rates of procedural success and the incidence of adverse outcomes following valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search of major electronic databases was conducted for studies relevant to patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves undergoing VIV-TAVR. The primary outcome was procedural success. A total of 5,553 patients from 24 studies were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 7.84±5.14. The procedural success rate was high (97%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94-98%). At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 5% (95% CI: 3-6%), stroke 2% (95% CI: 1-2%), myocardial infarction 1% (95% CI: 1-2%), permanent pacemaker placement 6% (95% CI: 5-8%), and aortic regurgitation 7% (95% CI: 5-10%). At one year, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 12% (95% CI: 10-14%), stroke 3% (95% CI: 2-4%), myocardial infarction 1% (95% CI: 0-2%), and permanent pacemaker placement 7% (95% CI: 5-11%). At three years, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 29% (95% CI: 25-34%) and stroke 6% (95% CI: 5-9%).

CONCLUSIONS

VIV-TAVR appears to be associated with high procedural success rates and low adverse outcomes during the short-term and midterm follow-up period.

Long-term clinical outcomes of the Toronto stentless porcine valve: 15-year results from dual centers

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine the long-term durability of the Toronto stentless porcine valve (SPV) in the aortic position (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN).

METHODS

We assessed the long-term clinical outcomes of 515 patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Toronto SPV from 1987 to 2001 at two centers, excluding early (<30 days) death. Median follow-up was 11.5 years (maximum 19.0 years).

RESULTS

Average age was 64.2 ± 10.8 years, and females were 34% (173/515). The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch was low, 10.9%. Overall survival was 90.7 ± 1.3%, 75.4 ± 2.0%, and 56.8 ± 3.2% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively after surgery. Over the follow-up duration, 116 patients (23%) underwent repeated AVR: 90 for structural valve deterioration (SVD), 12 for endocarditis, 10 nonstructural valve dysfunction (10 aortic regurgitation due to aorta dilatation), and four for other reasons. The cumulative incidence of repeated AVR with death as a competing risk was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.7), 11.1% (95% CI, 8.4-14.2), and 34.4% (95% CI, 28.8-40.2) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Reoperative mortality was 5.2% (6/116). In SVD, the regurgitation type was dominant (82%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Toronto SPV is associated with excellent survival and durability during the first decade of follow-up. However, regurgitation type of SVD increases from 10 years after operation with acceptable reoperative mortality. These findings may assist with prosthesis selection and reintervention strategy for failing stentless bioprosthesis.

Midterm Outcomes for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failed Freestyle Bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is acceptable in patients at high risk for reoperation. Studies suggest that ViV TAVR in stentless valves may be technically more challenging. This study sought to evaluate midterm outcomes for ViV TAVR in the degenerative Freestyle ((Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN)) stentless bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Between October 2014 and January 2019, 56 patients underwent ViV TAVR for a failed Freestyle valve at a single institution using a commercially available self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve. Patient baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were applied.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 75 ± 8 years and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons mean risk score was 9% ± 8%. The predominant mode of Freestyle valve failure was regurgitation (77%), and 36 patients (64%) required urgent intervention for refractory acute heart failure. Device success using a self-expanding TAVR was 82%, with 6 cases (11%) requiring deployment of two transcatheter valves. There were 3 operative mortalities (5%). At 30-day follow-up, no patient had greater than moderate perivalvular regurgitation. Device success was higher in the later patients compared with patients done earlier (P = .02). Mean aortic valve gradients at 30 days and 1 year were 11 ± 8 and 9 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively. For patients alive beyond day 30, 3-year survival was 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing ViV TAVR in the Freestyle valve using a self-expanding transcatheter valve presents a technical challenge, but may be feasible with good midterm results. Procedural success is associated with an early hazard learning curve.

How to Avoid Coronary Occlusion During TAVR Valve-in-Valve Procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve replacement has been recently reported as a less-invasive alternative to re-do surgery in patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. Although procedural success is achieved in the great majority of patients, this therapy is associated with several potential complications, and coronary occlusion is one of the most feared. This is a rare event, but it is associated with an extremely poor prognosis. In this review, the mechanisms, the identification of patients at high risk, the primary prevention strategies, and treatment of coronary occlusion will be discussed.