Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed surgical valves

Surgical aortic valve replacement in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a review of the UK national database

OBJECTIVES

To date the reported outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are mainly in the settings of trials comparing it with evolving transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We set out to examine characteristics and outcomes in people who underwent SAVR reflecting a national cohort and therefore 'real-world' practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive people who underwent SAVR with or without coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery between April 2013 and March 2018 in the UK. This included elective, urgent and emergency operations. Participants' demographics, preoperative risk factors, operative data, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications and effect of the addition of CABG to SAVR were analysed.

SETTING

27 (90%) tertiary cardiac surgical centres in the UK submitted their data for analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

31 277 people with AVR were identified. 19 670 (62.9%) had only SAVR and 11 607 (37.1%) had AVR+CABG.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality for isolated SAVR was 1.9% (95% CI 1.6% to 2.1%) and was 2.4% for AVR+CABG. Mortality by age category for SAVR only were: <60 years=2.0%, 60-75 years=1.5%, >75 years=2.2%. For SAVR+CABG these were; 2.2%, 1.8% and 3.1%. For different categories of EuroSCORE, mortality for SAVR in low risk people was 1.3%, in intermediate risk 1% and for high risk 3.9%. 74.3% of the operations were elective, 24% urgent and 1.7% emergency/salvage. The incidences of resternotomy for bleeding and stroke were 3.9% and 1.1%, respectively. Multivariable analyses provided no evidence that concomitant CABG influenced outcome. However, urgency of the operation, poor ventricular function, higher EuroSCORE and longer cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times adversely affected outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical SAVR±CABG has low mortality risk and a low level of complications in the UK in people of all ages and risk factors. These results should inform consideration of treatment options in people with aortic valve disease.

5 Year Outcomes of Patients With Aortic Structural Valve Deterioration Treated With Transcatheter Valve in Valve - A Single Center Prospective Registry

The Valve-in-Valve (ViV) technique is an established alternative for the treatment of structural bioprosthetic valve deterioration (SVD). Data describing the intermediate term follow up of patients treated with this approach is scarce. We report on our intermediate-term outcomes of patients with SVD in the Aortic position treated with ViV. Included were patients with symptomatic SVD in the aortic position valve who were treated by Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) during the years 2010-2019 in our center. Three main outcomes were examined during the follow up period: NYHA functional class, ViV-TAVI hemodynamic per echocardiography, and mortality. Our cohort consisted of 85 patients (mean age 78.8 ± 8.9 years). The indications for aortic ViV were: SVD isolated aortic stenosis in 37.6%, SVD isolated aortic regurgitation in 42.2% and combined valve pathology in 20.0%. Self-expandable and balloon-expandable devices were used in 73 (85.9%) and 12 (14.1%), respectively. Average follow up was 3.7 ± 2.4 years. 95 and 91% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II at 1 and 5 year follow up respectively. At one year, the mean trans-aortic valve pressure was 15 ± 9 mmHg and rates of ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation were 3.7%. Mortality at one year was 8.6% (95% CI 2.3–14.4) and 31% (95% CI 16.5–42.5) at 5 years. ViV in the aortic position offers an effective and durable treatment option for patient with SVD, with low rates of all-cause mortality, excellent hemodynamic and improved functional capacity at intermediate follow up.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD).

BACKGROUND

ViV TAVR has been increasingly used for SVD, but it remains unknown whether it produces better or at least comparable results as redo SAVR.

METHODS

Observational studies comparing ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were identified in a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Twelve publications including a total of 16,207 patients (ViV TAVR, n = 8,048; redo SAVR, n = 8,159) were included from studies published from 2015 to 2020. In the pooled analysis, ViV TAVR was associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality overall (odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.87; p = 0.017) and for matched populations (OR: 0.419; 95% CI: 0.278 to 0.632; p = 0.003), stroke (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.76; p < 0.001), permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.43; p = 0.536), and major bleeding (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.93; p = 0.034), as well as with shorter hospital stay (OR: -3.30; 95% CI: -4.52 to -2.08; p < 0.001). In contrast, ViV TAVR was associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.23; p = 0.045) and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 3.05 to 7.03; p < 0.001). The search revealed an important lack of comparative studies with long-term results.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVR is a valuable option in the treatment of patients with SVD because of its lower incidence of post-operative complications and better early survival compared with redo SAVR. However, ViV TAVR is associated with higher rates of myocardial infarction and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves - an update on indications, techniques, and clinical results

Introduction: Aortic and mitral bioprosthesis are the gold standard treatment to replace a pathological native valve. However, bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. During the past decade, the implantation of transcatheter stent-valves within degenerated aortic and mitral bioprostheses, (the so-called 'valve-in-valve' procedure), represents a valid alternative to redo surgery in patients with high-risk surgical profiles.Areas covered: We reviewed the clinical outcomes and the procedural details of transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve series according to current published literature and include a practical guide for valve sizing and stent-valve positioning and strategies to prevent complications.Expert opinion: In both aortic and mitral positions meticulous planning is fundamental in these procedures to avoid serious complications including patient prosthesis mismatch, coronary obstruction and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.

The effect of clinically recommended Evolut sizes on anchorage forces after BASILICA

Coronary artery obstruction (CAO), a fatal complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), is commonly found after Valve-in-Valve implantation inside a degenerated bioprosthetic valve. Leaflet laceration (BASILICA technique) has been proposed to prevent CAO and to potentially reduce the risk of leaflet thrombosis. We have previously demonstrated that this technique can reduce the anchorage forces of the TAVR device, which may lead to future complications. In this short communication, we hypothesize that the anchorage force reduction can be minimized by implanting a TAVR with a larger diameter, if two sizes are clinically recommended. We evaluated this hypothesis by employing finite element models of the deployments of the Evolut 26 and 29 mm inside a 27 mm Mitroflow valve, with and without leaflet lacerations. The results show that a laceration substantially decreases the contact area between the Evolut stent and the Mitroflow valve. The larger Evolut has a larger contact area and stronger anchorage forces. Additionally, the anchorage forces are less sensitive to additional lacerations in the larger Evolut (29 case). The results suggest that a larger self-expending device can ensure stronger anchorage and can lower the risk of possible migration, when TAVR is performed in a lacerated bioprosthesis.

Impact of BASILICA on Sinus and Neo-Sinus Hemodynamics after Valve-in-Valve with and without Coronary Flow

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

This study aims at evaluating the impact of BASILICA on neo-sinus and sinus hemodynamics with and without coronary flow. Leaflet thrombosis after valve-in-valve (ViV) may compromise not only leaflet mobility but also affect valve durability and performance.

METHODS/MATERIALS

In a 23 mm transparent surgical aortic valve model, a 23 mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 and a 26 mm Medtronic Evolut were deployed before and after leaflet laceration, in models with and without coronary flow. Neo-sinus and sinus hemodynamics were evaluated in the aortic position of a pulse duplicator and particle image velocimetry was performed in order to quantify sinus flow hemodynamics along with sinus and neo-sinus washout.

RESULTS

BASILICA-type leaflet laceration procedure led to (a) an increase in the velocities in the sinus and the neo-sinus by 50% for Evolut ViV with and without coronary flow, 70% for non-coronary SAPIEN 3 ViV and 10% for coronary SAPIEN 3 ViV, and (b) an improvement in overall washout up to 2 cycles in the neo-sinus and 0.5 cycles in the sinus.

CONCLUSIONS

A BASILICA-type leaflet laceration approach may improve sinus and neo-sinus hemodynamics through decreasing flow stasis and enabling less confined blood flow. BASILICA confers coronary sinus flow patterns to the non-coronary sinus.