Expanding Indications for Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture and Bioprosthetic Valve Remodeling

A multimodal approach to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

The valve-in-valve transcatheter-aortic-valve-implantation (VIV-TAVI) represents an emerging procedure for the treatment of degenerated aortic bio-prostheses, and the occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after VIV-TAVI might affect its clinical efficacy. This study aimed to test a multimodal imaging approach to predict PPM risk during the TAVI planning phase and assess its clinical predictivity in VIV-TAVI procedures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing VIV-TAVI procedures at our Institution over 6 years were screened and those treated by self-expandable supra-annular valves were selected. The effective orifice area (EOA) was calculated with a hybrid Gorlin equation combining echocardiographic data with invasive hemodynamic assessment. Severe PPM was defined according to such original multimodality assessment as EOAi≤0.65 cm2/m2 (if BMI < 30 kg/m2) or < 0.55 cm2/m2 (if BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and valve-related re-hospitalization during the clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 40 VIV-TAVI was included in the analysis. According to the pre-specified multimodal imaging modality assessment, 18 patients (45.0 %) had severe PPM. Among all baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics, estimated glomerular filtration rate before VIV-TAVI (OR 0.872, 95%CI[0.765-0.994],p = 0.040), the echocardiographic pre-procedural ≥moderate AR (OR 0.023, 95%CI[0.001-0.964],p = 0.048), the MSCT-derived effective internal area (OR 0.958, 95%CI[0.919-0.999],p = 0.046) and the implantation depth (OR 2.050, 95%CI[1.028-4.086],p = 0.041) resulted as independent predictors of severe PPM at multivariable logistic analysis. At a mean follow-up of 630 days, patients with severe PPM showed a higher incidence of the primary endpoint (9.1%vs.44.4 %;p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In VIV-TAVI using self-expandable supra-annular valves, a multimodal imaging approach might improve clinical outcome predicting severe PPM occurrence.

New Insights and Perspective on Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture From Bench Testing and Computed Tomography Analysis

Background

Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) during valve-in-valve TAVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) is a procedural adjunct designed to optimize the expansion of the transcatheter heart valve and reduce patient-prosthesis mismatch by using a high-pressure balloon to intentionally fracture the surgical heart valve (SHV).

Methods

We performed bench testing on 15 bioprosthetic SHV to examine the optimal balloon size and pressure for BVF. We assessed morphological changes and expansion of SHV by computed tomography angiography. Successful BVF was defined as balloon waist disappearance on fluoroscopy and/or sudden pressure drop during balloon inflation.

Results

Nine valves met the definition of BVF, 3 of which were confirmed by disruption of the stent frame. We classified surgical valves into 3 subsets: 1) fracturable with metal stent frame (MSF), 2) fracturable with polymer stent frame (PSF) and 3) nonfracturable. In general, valves with MSF were fractured using a balloon size = true internal diameter plus 3-5 mm inflated at high pressure (16-20 ATM) whereas valves with PSF could be fractured with a balloon size = true internal diameter plus 3-5 mm and lower balloon pressure (6-14 ATM). Gains in computed tomography angiography derived inflow area after BVF were 12.3% for MSF and 3.6% for PSF SHV.

Conclusions

Gains in CT-determined valve area after BVF depend on the physical properties of the SHV, which in turn influences pressure thresholds and balloon sizing strategy for optimal BVF. Elastic recoil of PSF valves limits the gains in inflow area after BVF.

Outcomes of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve TAVR

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used to treat degenerated surgical bioprostheses. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) has been shown to improve hemodynamic status in VIV TAVR in case series. However, the safety and efficacy of BVF are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of VIV TAVR using SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra valves with or without BVF using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry.

METHODS

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included echocardiography-derived valve gradient and aortic valve area. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 2,975 patients underwent VIV TAVR from December 15, 2020, to March 31, 2022. BVF was attempted in 619 patients (21%). In adjusted analyses, attempted BVF was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.30-4.84) and life-threatening bleeding (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 1.44-4.50). At discharge, VIV TAVR with attempted BVF was associated with larger aortic valve area (1.6 cm² vs 1.4 cm²; P < 0.01) and lower mean gradient (16.3 mm Hg vs 19.2 mm Hg; P < 0.01). When BVF was compared with no BVF according to timing (before vs after transcatheter heart valve implantation), BVF after transcatheter heart valve implantation was associated with improved hemodynamic status and similar mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

BVF as an adjunct to VIV TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra valves is associated with a higher risk for in-hospital mortality and significant bleeding and modest improvements in echocardiography-derived hemodynamic status. The timing of BVF is an important determinant of safety and efficacy.

Balloon Fracturing Valve-in-Valve: How to Do It and a Case Report of TAVR in a Rapid Deployment Prosthesis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat degeneration of bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs), called as valve-in-valve (ViV), is becoming a key feature since the number of BHVs requiring intervention is increasing and many patients are at high risk for a redo cardiac surgery. However, a TAVR inside a small previous cardiac valve may lead to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and not be as effective as we hoped for. An effective option to decrease the chance of PPM is to fracture the previous heart valve implanted using a high-pressure balloon. By performing a valve fracture, the inner valve ring of small BHVs can be opened up by a single fracture line, allowing subsequent implantation of a properly sized transcatheter heart valve, without increasing substantially the procedure risk. In this article, we provide a step-by-step procedure on how to safely and properly fracture a BHV and report a case of a TAVR in a degenerated rapid deployment valve.

Trans-Catheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Failure

Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure is a valid treatment option for patients affected by bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) degeneration. However, ViV implantation is technically more challenging compared to native trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A deep knowledge of the mechanism and features of the failed BHV is pivotal to plan an adequate procedure. Multimodal imaging is fundamental in the diagnostic and pre-procedural phases. The main challenges associated with ViV TAVR consist of a higher risk of coronary obstruction, severe post-procedural patient-prosthesis mismatch, and a difficult coronary re-access. In this review, we describe the principles of ViV TAVR.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: a practical guide

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) is currently indicated for the treatment of failed surgical tissue valves in patients determined to be at high surgical risk for re-operative surgical valve replacement. VIV TAVR, however, often results in suboptimal expansion of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and can result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), particularly in small surgical valves. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) can facilitate VIV TAVR by optimally expanding the THV and reducing the residual transvalvular gradient by utilizing a high-pressure inflation with a non-compliant balloon to either fracture or stretch the surgical valve ring, respectively. This article, along with the supplemental video, will provide patient selection, procedural planning and technical insights for performing BVF and BVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic valves

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves (valve-in-valve TAVI) has become an established procedure, currently approved for patients deemed at high risk for repeat aortic valve intervention. Although less invasive than surgical reoperation, challenges of valve-in-valve treatment include higher rates of malposition, prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction. Thus, optimal patient selection and preprocedural planning is of the utmost importance to minimise the risk of these complications. In this review article we provide a fully illustrated overview of the most significant periprocedural operative considerations for valve-in-valve TAVI.