Haemodynamic outcomes following aortic valve-in-valve procedure

Third-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve with Reverse Parachute Sealing Cuff in Patients with Aortic Valve Disease

BACKGROUND

The Navitor (Abbott Inc, IL, USA) transcatheter heart valve is a novel third-generation self-expanding bioprosthesis with specific features to mitigate paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Owing to its novelty, there is a paucity of data on its application in clinical practice.

METHODS

Consecutive cohort analysis of the use of the Navitor system in an as-treated clinical setting at a quaternary heart hospital.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive non-clinical trial patients treated with Navitor were identified. All patients underwent a successful procedure. The mean age was 79.3 years (±SD 7.82), 56.67% (n=34) were female, and the mean STS score was 4.87 (±SD 5.70). At 30 days post-procedure, all patients were alive with no readmissions for heart failure. One patient had a major vascular complication (1.7%). Four patients (7.14% of patients without a pre-existing pacemaker) received a new permanent pacemaker. Two patients (3.4%) had a non-disabling stroke. PVR at 30 days was trivial or none in 75% of patients, and no patient had worse than mild PVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The Navitor system in this as-treated cohort was associated with favourable clinical, haemodynamic, and safety outcomes.

Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes Comparison of Native- and Valve-in-Valve TAVI Procedures

Background

In high-risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. To compare outcomes of ViV and native valve (NV) TAVI procedures.

Methods

34 aortic ViV-TAVI performed between 2012 and 2022 using self-expanding valves, were included in this retrospective analysis. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio, 19 criteria) was used to select a comparison NV-TAVI group from a database of 1206 TAVI procedures. Clinical and echocardiographic endpoints, short- and long-term all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) data were obtained. Subgroup analyses were completed according to the true internal diameter, dividing patients into a small ( ≤ 19 mm) valve group (SVG) and a large ( > 19 mm) valve group (LVG).

Results

Clinical outcomes of ViV- and NV-TAVI were comparable, including device success [88.2% vs. 91.1%, p = 0.727], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [5.8% vs. 5.8%, p = 1.000], hemodialysis need [5.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.599], pacemaker need [2.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.265], major vascular complications [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000], life-threatening or major bleeding [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000] and in-hospital mortality [8.8% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.556]. There was a significant difference in the immediate post-intervention mean residual aortic valve gradient (MAVG) [14.6 ± 8.5 mm Hg vs. 6.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg, p < 0.0001], which persisted at 1 year [p = 0.0002]. There were no differences in 12- or 30-month ACM [11.8% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.588; 23.5% vs. 27.9%, p = 0.948], and CVM [11.8% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.441; 23.5% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.239]. Lastly, there was no difference in CVM at 1 year and 30 months [11.1% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.889; 22.2% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.742].

Conclusions

Analyzing a limited group (n = 34) of ViV-TAVI procedures out of 1206 TAVIs done at a single institution, ViV-TAVI appeared to be an acceptable approach in patients not deemed appropriate candidates for redo valve replacement surgery. Clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVI were comparable to TAVI for native valve stenosis.

Repeated valve replacement: approaches and devices (literature review)

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction represent a serious drawback that limits the wider clinical use of these medical devices for valvular heart disease surgery. Modern studies describe the view of pathophysiologists on this problem as a multifactorial multi-stage process that causes irreversible changes in bioprosthesis components, ultimately leading to its dysfunction. However, in addition to under- standing the causes and manifestations of prosthetic valve dys- function, an applied question arises about the treatment strategies — determining the most attenuated and accessible low-risk method/ device. The aim of this review was to analyze and systematize current literature data on methods and designs used in repeated surgical and transcatheter interventions on heart valves.

Geometric changes in aortic root replacement using Freestyle prosthesis

Background

The Medtronic Freestyle prosthesis has proven to be a promising recourse for aortic root replacement in various indications. The present study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes and geometric changes of the aorta after Freestyle implantation.

Methods

Between October 2005 and November 2020, the computed tomography angiography (CTA) data of 32 patients were analyzed in a cohort of 68 patients that underwent aortic root replacement using Freestyle prosthesis. The minimum and maximum diameters and areas of the aortic annulus, aortic root, ascending aorta, and the proximal aortic arch were measured at a plane perpendicular to the long axis of the aorta using 3D multiplanar reconstruction in both the preoperative (n = 32) and postoperative (n = 10) CTAs. Moreover, volumetric changes of the aortic root and ascending aorta were quantified.

Results

Mean age was 64.6 ± 10.6 years. Indications for surgery using Freestyle prosthesis were combined aortic valve pathologies, aortic aneurysm or dissection, and endocarditis, with concomitant surgery occurring in 28 out of 32 patients. In-hospital mortality was 18.6%.

Preoperative diameter and area measurements of the aortic annulus strongly correlated with the implanted valve size (p < 0.001). Bicuspid valve was present in 28.1% of the patients. Diameter and areas of the aortic root decreased after freestyle implantation, resulting in a reduction of the aortic root volume (45.6 ± 26.3 cm³ to 18.7 ± 4.5 cm³, p = 0.029). Volume of the aortic root and the ascending aorta decreased from 137.3 ± 65.2 cm³ to 54.5 ± 21.1 cm³ after Freestyle implantation (p = 0.023).

Conclusion

Implantation of the Freestyle prosthesis presents excellent results in restoring the aortic geometry. Preoperative CTA measurements are beneficial to the surgical procedure and valve selection and therefore, if available, should be considered in pre-operative planning.

Sutureless Valve in Repeated Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from an International Prospective Registry

OBJECTIVE

To report early and midterm results registry of patients undergoing repeated aortic valve replacement (RAVR) with sutureless prostheses from an international prospective registry (SURE-AVR).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and June 2019, 69 patients underwent RAVR with self-expandable sutureless aortic bioprostheses at 22 international cardiac centers.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 2.9% with a predicted logistic EuroSCORE II of 10.7%. Indications for RAVR were structural valve dysfunction (84.1%) and infective prosthetic endocarditis (15.9%) and were performed in patients with previously implanted bioprostheses (79.7%), mechanical valves (15.9%), and transcatheter valves (4.3%). Minimally invasive approach was performed in 15.9% of patients. Rate of stroke was 1.4% and rate of early valve-related reintervention was 1.4%. Overall survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 97% and 91%, respectively. No major paravalvular leak occurred. Rate of pacemaker implantation was 5.8% and 0.9% per patient-year early and at follow-up, respectively. The mean transvalvular gradient at 1-year and 5-year follow-up was 10.5 mm Hg and 11.5 mm Hg with a median effective orifice area of 1.8 cm²and 1.8 cm², respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RAVR with sutureless valves is a safe and effective approach and provides excellent clinical and hemodynamic results up to 5 years.

New Challenging Scenarios in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Valve-in-valve, Bicuspid and Native Aortic Regurgitation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the most frequently performed structural technique in the field of interventional cardiology. Initially, this procedure was only used in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive risk. Now, barely one decade after its introduction, TAVI indications extend to low- and intermediate-risk patients. Despite these advances, several challenging scenarios are still on the periphery of the evidence base for TAVI. These include valve-in-valve procedures, lower-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve and the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation. Whereas the valve-in-valve indication has expanded rapidly, evidence for the use of TAVI compared with conventional surgery for bicuspid aortic valve is limited, including the best choice of device should TAVI be used. Evidence for TAVI in pure aortic regurgitation is still anecdotal because of suboptimal outcomes. Operators worldwide have described variations in the TAVI procedural technique to achieve commissural alignment and to minimise the rate of pacemaker use through cusp overlap implantation. In light of the potential clinical benefits, this may also be an area of further development. This review aims to discuss the current evidence available supporting the use of TAVI for these new indications.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with fracturing of a failed small surgical aortic bioprosthesis: a case report

Background

Failure of a small surgical aortic bioprosthesis represents a challenging clinical scenario with valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) often resulting in patient-prosthesis mismatch. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) performed as a part of the ViV TAVI has recently emerged as an alternative approach with certain types of surgical bioprostheses.

Case summary

An 81-year-old woman with a history of three surgical aortic valve procedures presented with heart failure. Aortic bioprosthesis degeneration with severe stenosis and moderate regurgitation was found. The patient was deemed a high-risk surgical candidate and the heart team decided that ViV TAVI was the preferred treatment option. Due to the very small 19 mm stented surgical aortic bioprosthesis Mitroflow 19 mm (Sorin Group, Italy) we decided to perform BVF as a part of ViV TAVI to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Since this was the first BVF procedure in our centre, an ex vivo BVF of the same kind of bioprosthetic valve was performed first. Subsequently, successful BVF with implantation of Evolut R 23 mm (Medtronic, USA) self-expandable transcatheter valve was performed. Excellent haemodynamic result was achieved and no periprocedural complications were present. The patient had an immediate major improvement in clinical status and remains asymptomatic after 6 months.

Discussion

Bioprosthetic valve fracture together with ViV TAVI is a safe and effective emerging technique for treatment of small surgical aortic bioprosthesis failure. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows marked oversizing of implanted self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves, leading to excellent haemodynamic and clinical results. An ex vivo BVF can serve as an important preparatory step when introducing the new method.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Procedure and Outcomes

Initially, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was only used in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Subsequently, TAVR was extended to patients with high and intermediate surgical risk. Recently, the results of randomized trials in low-surgical-risk patients showed superiority or noninferiority of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement in this population. Procedural outcomes have been improved. Long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves remains to be confirmed. This article presents the evolution and current status of TAVR, with respect to the different types of devices and procedures as well as its outcomes.

Durability and Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Bioprostheses

Background:

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option when a surgical valve demonstrates deterioration and dysfunction. This study reports 3-year results following valve-in-valve with self-expanding TAVR.

Methods:

The CoreValve US Expanded Use Study is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm study that evaluates safety and effectiveness of TAVR in extreme risk patients with symptomatic failed surgical biologic aortic valves. Study end points include all-cause mortality, need for valve reintervention, hemodynamic changes over time, and quality of life through 3 years. Patients were stratified by presence of preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Results:

From March 2013 to May 2015, 226 patients deemed extreme risk (STS-PROM [Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality] 9.0±7%) had attempted valve-in-valve TAVR. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 47.2% of the cohort. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or major stroke was 28.6%, and 93% of patients were in New York Heart Association I or II heart failure. Valve performance was maintained over 3 years with low valve reintervention rates (4.4%), an improvement in effective orifice area over time and a 2.7% rate of severe structural valve deterioration. Preexisting severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with 3-year mortality but was associated with significantly less improvement in quality of life at 3-year follow-up ( P =0.01).

Conclusions:

Self-expanding TAVR in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at extreme risk for surgery was associated with durable hemodynamics and excellent clinical outcomes. Preexisting surgical valve prosthesis-patient mismatch was not associated with mortality but did limit patient improvement in quality of life over 3-year follow-up.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01675440.