Transapical mitral valve-in-valve ring implantation with the Edwards Sapien 3 prosthesis

Reoperative Mitral Surgery Versus Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review

Bioprosthetic mitral structural valve degeneration and failed mitral valve repair (MVr) have traditionally been treated with reoperative mitral valve surgery. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MVIV) and valve-in-ring (MVIR) replacement are now feasible, but data comparing these approaches are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo-MVR) and MVIV for structural valve degeneration, and (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo-MVr) or MVR and MVIR for failed MVr. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to July 31, 2020. Thirty-two studies involving 25 832 patients were included. Redo-MVR was required in ≈35% of patients after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30-day mortality. MVIV resulted in >95% procedural success with 30-day and 1-year mortality of 0% to 8% and 11% to 16%, respectively. Recognized complications included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0%-6%), valve migration (0%-9%), and residual regurgitation (0%-6%). Comparisons of redo-MVR and MVIV showed no statistically significant differences in mortality (11.3% versus 11.9% at 1 year, P=0.92), albeit higher rates of major bleeding and arrhythmias with redo-MVR. MVIR resulted in 0% to 34% mortality at 1 year, whereas both redo-MVr and MVR for failed repairs were performed with minimal mortality and durable long-term results. MVIV is therefore a viable alternative to redo-MVR for structural valve degeneration, whereas redo-MVr or redo-MVR is preferred for failed MVr given the suboptimal results with MVIR. However, not all patients will be candidates for MVIV/MVIR because anatomical restrictions may preclude transcatheter options from adequately addressing the underlying pathology.

Redo mitral valve surgery following prior mitral valve repair

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy following a failed mitral valve repair remains unclear. This study evaluated early and long-term outcomes of redo mitral valve repair (MVr) and replacement (MVR) after prior mitral valve repair.

METHODS

Patients undergoing redo mitral valve surgery after prior mitral valve repair at a single institution between 2002 and 2014 were reviewed. Primary outcomes included operative mortality (30-day or in-hospital mortality) and long-term freedom from mitral valve reoperation and death. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications.

RESULTS

305 patients underwent redo MVr (n = 48) or MVR (n = 257) after prior mitral valve repair. Concomitant procedures included tricuspid valve repair or replacement (23%), aortic valve replacement (6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (4%), with no differences between cohorts. 18% were performed via right mini-thoracotomy (24% MVr vs 18% MVR, P = 0.31). Unadjusted and risk-adjusted operative mortality were lower with MVr (0% vs 8%, P = 0.04). Rates of postoperative complications were similar except for blood product transfusion (35% MVr vs 59% MVR, P = 0.003) and prolonged mechanical ventilation (8% MVr vs 29% MVR, P = 0.003). Long-term freedom from mortality was comparable: 96% MVr versus 86% MVR at 1 year and 78% MVr versus 68% MVR at 5 years (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

When technically feasible, mitral valve re-repair can be safely performed with outcomes comparable to MVR.

Transcatheter mitral valve implantation for degenerated mitral bioprostheses or failed surgical annuloplasty rings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMVIV) and valve-in-ring (TMVIR) implantation for degenerated mitral bioprostheses and failed annuloplasty rings have recently emerged as treatment options for patients deemed unsuitable for repeat surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the data regarding the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TMVIV and TMVIR procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients (172 patients who underwent TMVIV surgery and 73 patients who underwent TMVIR surgery) were included in the study; 93.5% of patients experienced successful TMVIV or TMVIR implantation. The mortality rates at discharge, 30 days, and 6 months were 5.7%, 8.1%, and 23.4%, respectively. The transapical (TA) access route was used in most procedures (55.2%). The TA and transseptal (TS) access routes resulted in similar outcomes. No significant differences were observed in the short-term outcomes between the patients who developed mitral stenosis versus mitral regurgitation as the mode of failure.

CONCLUSIONS

TMVIV and TMVIR implantation for degenerated mitral bioprostheses and failed annuloplasty rings are safe and effective. Both procedures, via TA or TS access, can result in excellent short-term clinical outcomes in patients with mitral stenosis or regurgitation, but long-term follow-up data are currently lacking to determine the durability of these procedures.

Treatment of tricuspid regurgitation and para-ring leak in tetralogy of Fallot with oversized SAPIEN 3 valve-in-ring implantation

A 40-year-old female with previously repaired tetralogy of Fallot had recurrent severe tricuspid regurgitation with a para-ring leak after annuloplasty ring placement. Because of multiple prior sternotomies and co-morbidities, she was not felt to be a surgical candidate. Percutaneous placement of an oversized SAPIEN 3 valve-in-ring in the tricuspid position successfully treated the regurgitation and para-ring leak.

Surgical management of outflow tract obstruction after transapical mitral valve implantation

Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction due to systolic anterior motion of the anterior mitral valve leaflet (AML) is a known complication after mitral valve repair or transfemoral/transapical mitral valve implantation (TMVI). We present a patient with a previous mitral valve repair who developed LVOT obstruction after TMVI in whom the AML was surgically resected using a transaortic approach.

Short- and long-term outcomes following redo valvular surgery

AIM

We reviewed our experience in redo valvular surgery to evaluate trends in short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 414 patients (mean age, 62.8 ± 13.6 years) who underwent redo valvular surgery in the past 25 years. A total of 301 patients (54.2%) underwent first-time redo valvular surgeries; 178 (32.1%) were second redos, 60 (10.8%) were third redos, and 16 were fourth redos (2.9%). The mean follow-up period was 6.8 ± 6.3 years.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 5.8%. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (P = 0.0007, odds ratio = 4.403) and hemodialysis (P = 0.0383, odds ratio = 7.196) were risk factors for hospital death. Long-term survival rates at 15 and 20 years were 64.7% ± 4.3% and 59.1% ± 5.0%, respectively. Predictors of late death were first time redo (P = 0.0076, hazard ratio = 0.422) and age younger than 61 years (P = 0.0005, hazard ratio = 0.229). There were significant differences in long-term survival between NYHA classes I/II and III/IV (log-rank test, P = 0.0419) and between the time from redo surgery (log-rank test, P = 0.0189) and age (log-rank test, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital mortality rate for redo valve surgery has improved. Early referral for redo surgery can contribute to improving early and late outcomes.