Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Replacement

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Prosthetic Valve Function With Cardiovascular Imaging: A Report From the American Society of Echocardiography Developed in Collaboration With the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

In patients with significant cardiac valvular disease, intervention with either valve repair or valve replacement may be inevitable. Although valve repair is frequently performed, especially for mitral and tricuspid regurgitation, valve replacement remains common, particularly in adults. Diagnostic methods are often needed to assess the function of the prosthesis. Echocardiography is the first-line method for noninvasive evaluation of prosthetic valve function. The transthoracic approach is complemented with two-dimensional and three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography for further refinement of valve morphology and function when needed. More recently, advances in computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance have enhanced their roles in evaluating valvular heart disease. This document offers a review of the echocardiographic techniques used and provides recommendations and general guidelines for evaluation of prosthetic valve function on the basis of the scientific literature and consensus of a panel of experts. This guideline discusses the role of advanced imaging with transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance in evaluating prosthetic valve structure, function, and regurgitation. It replaces the 2009 American Society of Echocardiography guideline on prosthetic valves and complements the 2019 guideline on the evaluation of valvular regurgitation after percutaneous valve repair or replacement.

Late Survival After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Balloon- Versus Self-Expandable Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement. There is an increasing interest in exploring the differences between self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs). Our study aimed to evaluate the all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV in patients with failed bioprostheses. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by March 30, 2023. A total of 5 studies met our eligibility criteria and included 1,454 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI (862 with SEV and 592 with BEV). Almost all BEVs were iterations of the Edwards BEVs (SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, and SAPIEN 3) and almost all SEVs were iterations of the Medtronic SEVs (CoreValve/Evolut). During the first year after ViV-TAVI, 67 deaths (11.8%) occurred in patients treated with BEV compared with 92 deaths (11.1%) in patients treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.27, p = 0.632). At 8 years of follow-up, the all-cause death was not statistically significantly different between the groups, with mortality rates of 65.4% in the group treated BEV and 58.8% in the group treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.09, p = 0.302). The restricted mean survival time was overall 0.25 years greater with SEV than BEV, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.278), which indicates no lifetime gain or loss with SEV in comparison with BEV. There seems to be no difference in terms of all-cause death in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our results.

The Evolving Role of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valvular Procedures

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; it was initially intended for high-risk patients and has now expanded its use to patients of all risk groups. While TAVR has demonstrated promising outcomes in diverse patient populations, uncertainties persist regarding its long-term durability and potential complications, raising the issue of the ideal lifetime management strategy for patients with AS. Therefore, SAVR continues to play an important role in clinical practice, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies, those with complex aortic anatomy who are unsuitable for TAVR, and those requiring concomitant surgical procedures. The choice between TAVR and SAVR warrants personalized decision-making, considering patient characteristics, comorbidities, anatomical considerations, and overall life expectancy. A multidisciplinary approach involving an experienced heart team is crucial in the preoperative evaluation process. In this review, we aimed to explore the current role of surgical management in addressing aortic valve stenosis amidst the expanding utilization of less invasive transcatheter procedures.

BAlloon expandable vs. SElf expanding transcatheter vaLve for degenerated bioprosthesIs: design and rationale of the BASELINE trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve bioprostheses may degenerate over time and require redo intervention. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive alternative to redo surgery. The BAlloon Expandable vs. SElf Expanding Transcatheter VaLve for Degenerated BioprosthesIs (BASELINE) trial was designed to compare the performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN-3 Ultra and the self-expanding EVOLUT PRO+ valve systems in symptomatic patients with a failing surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

The BASELINE trial is an investigator-initiated, non-funded, prospective, randomized, open-label, superiority trial enrolling a total of 440 patients in up to 50 sites in 12 countries in Europe and North-America. The primary endpoint is device success at 30-days defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 Criteria as the composite of technical success, freedom from mortality, freedom for surgery or intervention related to the device or to a major vascular or access-related or cardiac structural complication with an intended performance of the valve (mean gradient <20 mmHg and less than moderate aortic regurgitation). The co-primary endpoint at 1 year is defined as the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems. Independent Core Laboratories will conduct uniform analyses of echocardiography (pre-, post-, 1-year post-procedure), multi-sliced computed tomography (pre-, and if available post-procedure) and cine-fluoroscopy studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The BASELINE trial is a head-to-head comparative trial investigating the 2 most used contemporary transcatheter heart valves for the treatment of a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04843072).

Hemodynamic follow-up after valve-in-valve TAVR for failed aortic bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

"valve-in-valve" TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is established and provides good initial clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Lacking long-term durability data baffle the expand to lower risk patients. For those purposes, the present study adds a hemodynamic 3-years follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 77 patients underwent VIV-TAVR for failing aortic bioprosthesis during a 7-years period. Predominant mode of failure was stenosis in 87.0%. Patients had a mean age of 79.4 ± 5.8 years and a logistic EuroSCORE of 30.8 ± 15.7%. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-PROM averaged 5.79 ± 2.63%. Clinical results and hemodynamic outcomes are reported for 30-days, 1-, 2-, and 3-years. Completeness of follow-up was 100% with 44 patients at risk after 3-years. Follow-up ranged up to 7.1 years.

RESULTS

Majority of the surgical valves were stented (94.8%) with a mean labeled size of 23.1 ± 2.3 mm and true-ID of 20.4 ± 2.6 mm. A true-ID ≤21 mm had 58.4% of the patients. Self-expanding valves were implanted in 68.8% (mean labeled size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm) and balloon-expanded in 31.2% (mean size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm). No patient died intraoperatively. Hospital mortality was 1.3% and three-years survival 57.1%. All patients experienced an initial significant dPmean-reduction to 16.8 ± 7.1 mmHg. After 3-years mean dPmean raised to 26.0 ± 12.2 mmHg. This observation was independent from true-ID or type of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-prosthesis. Patients with a true-ID ≤21 mm had a higher initial (18.3 ± 5.3 vs. 14.9 ± 7.1 mmHg; p = .005) and dPmean after 1-year (29.2 ± 8.2 vs. 13.0 ± 6.7 mmHg; p = .004). There were no significant differences in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

VIV-TAVR is safe and effective in the early period. In surgical valves with a true-ID ≤21 mm inferior hemodynamic and survival outcomes must be expected. Nonetheless, also patients with larger true-IDs showed steadily increasing transvalvular gradients. This raises concern about durability.

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical valves

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged in recent years as a safe alternative to redo surgery in high-risk patients. Although early results are encouraging, data beyond short-term outcomes are lacking. Herein, we aimed to assess the 2-year outcomes after ViV-TAVI.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for degenerated surgical valves between 2013 and 2019 at the Cleveland Clinic were reviewed. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and congestive heart failure (CHF) hospitalizations. We used time-to-event analyses to assess the primary outcomes. Further, we measured the changes in transvalvular gradients and the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-eight patients were studied (mean age = 76 years; 65% males). At 2 years of follow-up, all-cause mortality and CHF hospitalizations occurred in 15 (8%) and 28 (14.9%) patients, respectively. On multivariable analysis, the postprocedural length of stay was a significant predictor for both all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 1.19) and CHF hospitalization (HR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.27). However, the internal diameter of the surgical valve was not associated with significant differences in both primary endpoints. For hemodynamic outcomes, nine patients (4.8%) developed SVD. The mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients remained stable over the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVI for degenerated surgical valves was associated with favorable 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Further studies are needed to better understand the role of ViV-TAVI as a treatment option in the life management of aortic valve disease.

Evolving Indications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement—Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Going

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have steadily increased over the last decade since the first trials including inoperable or very high risk patients. Thus, TAVR is now the most common treatment of aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients (vs. surgical aortic valve replacement -SAVR-). In this review, we summarize the current indications of TAVR and explore future directions in which TAVR indications can expand.

Lifetime management for aortic stenosis: Planning for future therapies

A shift to lifetime management has gained more focus with the approval of low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This paper is therefore focused on the different approaches for lifetime management. Herein we discuss the procedural safety, durability, performance, and future options for each lifetime management strategy. In younger patients that elect to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), options for bioprosthetic failure are TAV-in-SAV or redo SAVR. Among patients that undergo TAVR, options for valve failure include TAVR explant with SAVR or TAV-in-TAV. Additionally, there are patients who may require a third valvular intervention. The initial therapy may limit re-intervention options down the road. This review discusses how options for future therapies affect the decision of SAVR vs TAVR in younger patients.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic and mitral bioprosthesis: Current state and future perspectives

The use of bioprosthetic valves for treating patients with severe valve disease has increased over the last 2 decades, and, as a consequence, a growing number of patients with failing surgical bioprosthesis is expected in the near future. In this setting, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic/mitral valve replacement (TAVR and TMVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery. Despite the increasing experience in ViV procedures, the development of these techniques faces several specific challenges, mainly related to the unique anatomical and physiological characteristics presented in ViV-TAVR/TMVR. Subsequently, various approaches have been proposed to overcome ViV-related complications and pitfalls. A growing body of evidence is currently available concerning early- and long-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR/TMVR. These data should be comprehensively evaluated by the Heart Team in the decision-making process involving patients with failing surgical bioprostheses. In this review, we aimed to delineate the technical challenges and risks associated with ViV-TAVR and ViV-TMVR, provide an updated overview of the main clinical results, and summarize the future perspectives of this evolving field.

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.

Balloon Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Failing Self-Expandable Transcatheter Valve in Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: Valve-in-Valve-in-Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Early Degenerative Prosthetic Insufficiency

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk. However, transcatheter valves can degenerate, and redo TAVI has been reported after surgical aortic valve implantation and post initial TAVI.

Case Report: We describe the case of a 70-year-old male who presented with decompensated heart failure secondary to severe prosthetic valve insufficiency. The patient had a history of distant triple coronary artery bypass surgery in 2004, surgical ascending aortic aneurysm repair and stentless aortic valve replacement in 2012, and transcatheter CoreValve (Medtronic) implantation in 2015 for the failing stentless aortic valve. In 2019, the patient presented with heart failure symptoms. A 29-mm SAPIEN 3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences) was implanted for the third time (valve-in-valve-in-valve) with excellent clinical and echocardiographic results and no evidence of coronary obstruction.

Conclusion: Early (<5 years) bioprosthetic valve insufficiency after initial valve-in-valve implantation can be successfully treated with a second TAVI.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve diameter and thickness are directly related to leaflet fluttering: Results from a combined experimental and computational modeling study

OBJECTIVE

Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are commonly used in surgical and percutaneous valve replacement. The durability of percutaneous valve replacement is unknown, but surgical valves have been shown to require reintervention after 10 to 15 years. Further, smaller-diameter surgical BHVs generally experience higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch, which leads to higher rates of failure. Bioprosthetic aortic valves can flutter in systole, and fluttering is associated with fatigue and failure in flexible structures. The determinants of flutter in BHVs have not been well characterized, despite their potential to influence durability.

METHODS

We use an experimental pulse duplicator and a computational fluid-structure interaction model of this system to study the role of device geometry on BHV dynamics. The experimental system mimics physiological conditions, and the computational model enables precise control of leaflet biomechanics and flow conditions to isolate the effects of variations in BHV geometry on leaflet dynamics.

RESULTS

Both experimental and computational models demonstrate that smaller-diameter BHVs yield markedly higher leaflet fluttering frequencies across a range of conditions. The computational model also predicts that fluttering frequency is directly related to leaflet thickness. A scaling model is introduced that rationalizes these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically characterize the influence of BHV diameter and leaflet thickness on fluttering dynamics. Although this study does not determine how flutter influences device durability, increased flutter in smaller-diameter BHVs may explain how prosthesis-patient mismatch could induce BHV leaflet fatigue and failure. Ultimately, understanding the effects of device geometry on leaflet kinematics may lead to more durable valve replacements.

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated aortic valves: Experience with a new supra-annular device. The Spanish Allegra valve-in-valve (SAVIV) registry

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the results of valve-in-valve procedures performed with the Allegra device.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation to treat degenerated biological aortic valves (valve-in-valve) is an established procedure in most catheterization laboratories, but the results are poorer than procedures done in native aortic stenosis. The Allegra device (Biosensors, Morges, Switzerland) has an excellent design to treat these patients.

METHODS

All patients with severely degenerated biological aortic valve treated with the Allegra device in centers from Spain until December 2020 were included (n = 29). Hemodynamic results and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated. The predominant hemodynamic failure was stenosis in 15, regurgitation in 11, and a combination of both in 3 cases. Time from aortic valve replacement to valve-in-valve procedure was 8.4 ± 3.9 years (range 3.3-22.1).

RESULTS

After the procedure, maximum and mean trans-valvular gradients were 17.4 ± 12.3 and 8.4 ± 6.1 mmHg, respectively. Device success was obtained in 28 patients (96.6%). In one patient with a degenerated 19 mm prosthetic valve, mean gradient after the procedure was 22 mmHg. No patients had a para-valvular leak grade >1. There were no deaths during the hospitalization or at 30 days and one patient suffered a stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The Allegra trans-catheter aortic valve offers optimal hemodynamic results in patients with severely degenerated biological aortic valve.

Balloon-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated Mitroflow bioprostheses: clinical and echocardiographic long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the risks associated with valve-in-valve procedures for treating structural valve deterioration in Mitroflow bioprostheses, as well as to determine the impact of the original Mitroflow size on the patients' long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and September 2019, 21 patients (61.9% males; mean age 82.4 ± 5.4 years) were treated for Mitroflow deterioration with valve-in-valve procedures (12 transapical and 9 transfemoral).

RESULTS

Mean EuroSCORE I and EuroSCORE II were 28.2% ± 13.6% and 10.5% ± 6.1%, respectively. Six patients presented an indexed aortic root diameter <14 mm/m2 and 7 patients a diameter of sinus of Valsalva <30 mm. Implanted transcatheter valve sizes were 20 mm in 6 cases, 23 mm in 14 cases and 26 mm in 1 patient. A Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 complication occurred in 23.8% of cases, including 3 coronary occlusions. In-hospital mortality was 9.5%. The 20 mm transcatheter valves presented significantly higher postoperative peak and mean aortic gradients than other sizes (54.1 ± 11.3 mmHg vs 29.9 ± 9.6 mmHg, P = 0.003; and 29.3 ± 7.7 mmHg vs 17.4 ± 5.9 mmHg, P = 0.015, respectively). There were 12 cases of patient-prosthesis mismatch (57.1%) and 3 cases (14.3%) of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. Cumulative survival was 85.7% ± 7.6% at 1 year, 74.3% ± 10% at 2 years and 37.1% ± 14.1% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve procedures with balloon-expandable transcatheter valves associate a high risk of coronary occlusion in patients with indexed aortic root diameter <14 mm/m2 and low coronary ostia <12 mm. Valve-in valve procedures with 20 mm balloon-expandable transcatheter valves in ≤21 mm Mitroflow bioprosthesis leave significant residual transvalvular gradients that might obscure patients' long-term outcomes.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome after Emergent Cardiac Surgery during Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Objective: Our study aimed to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of patients who required emergent conversion from transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to open surgery. Besides, the reasons and procedural settings of emergent cardiac surgery (ECS) were also reported.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the patients who underwent TAVI in our institution between 2012 and 2019 and collected the clinical data of cases who converted from TAVI to bail-out surgery. Telephone and outpatient follow-ups were performed.

Results: Of 516 TAVI patients, 20 required ECS, and the bail-out surgery occurred less frequently with the increase in TAVI volume. The most common reason for conversion was left ventricular perforation (7/20, 35.0%). Thirty-day mortality was 35.0% in ECS patients. Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that the cumulative survival rate was 65.0% at 1 year, 50.1% at 5 years in all ECS patients, and 77.1% at 5 years in patients who survived over 30 days after conversion.

Conclusion: Although the bail-out operation was performed immediately after TAVI abortion, ECS still associated with high 30-day mortality. The long-term survival benefit was seen in patients surviving from bail-out surgery. An experienced TAVI team is of crucial importance in avoiding ECS-related life-threatening complications and providing effective salvage surgery.

Long term follow up of percutaneous treatment for degenerated Mitroflow prosthesis with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

The durability of aortic valve bioprosthesis and the structural valve deterioration (SVD) are could be treated with valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This technique has been proven to be a feasible procedure with good results in selected patients. The aim of this work was to assess the long-term results of this TAVI with an autoexpandable valve in patients with failed Mitroflow (MF) bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Methods

Single center, observational and prospective study that included 65 consecutive patients with symptomatic failed MF bioprosthetic aortic valve, treated with VIV-TAVI. The primary endpoints were clinical long-term events including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, re-hospitalization due to heart failure, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the absence of SVD or patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and valve hemodynamics analysis at follow-up.

Results

Between March 2012 to July 2019, 65 symptomatic patients (age 80.4±5.9 years) with degenerated MF valves (numbers 19: 27.7%; 21: 38.5%; 23: 21.5%; 25: 12.3%) underwent CoreValve (n=11) or Evolut R (n=54) implantation (23, 26 and 29 mm sizes). The STS predicted risk of mortality was 6.39%±5.62%. The primary combined endpoint occurred in 32.3% of the cases. A total of 13 patients (20%) died during follow-up, but 4 (7.3%) from cardiovascular causes. Two patients were reported of having a stroke/TIA and 5 readmissions for cardiovascular causes were reported (2 of them within the first 30 days). Twenty-five patients (38.5%) presented PPM during follow-up, being PPM severe in 15 (23.1%).

Conclusions

Self-expanding TAVI for degenerated MF bioprosthesis has favourable long-term outcomes. It is a good option in order to avoid the risks of redo surgery in selected patients.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves

Aims

Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV.

Methods and results

A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID &gt; 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)].

Conclusions

The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Structural Valve Deterioration after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using J-Valve: A Long-Term Follow-Up

Purpose: Our study aimed to investigate the structural valve deterioration (SVD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using J-Valve.

Methods: In all, 14 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and 4 patients with pure aortic regurgitation (PAR) were available in the study. Four-year follow-up was performed in all patients, and the clinical data and echocardiographic findings were recorded and analyzed.

Results: All patients survived at the 4-year follow-up. There was no evidence of morphological SVD or prosthetic valve thrombosis in enrolled patients. None of the hemodynamic SVD occurred in patients with PAR. Mean gradients decreased from 61.93 ± 15.42 mm Hg (pre-TAVI) to 19.64 ± 9.16 mm Hg (discharge) in patients with AS (p <0.001); subsequently, a slight increase was observed in the mean trans-aortic gradient throughout follow-up (p = 0.967). Overall, in patients with AS, six individuals suffered moderate (3/14, 21.4%) or severe (3/14, 21.4%) hemodynamic SVD at 4-year follow-up.

Conclusions: The limited number of cases provides a preliminary indication of the long-term efficacy of TAVI using J-Valve in patients with PAR. In patients with AS, although the higher rate of SVD was observed, the overall transcatheter heart valve (THV) hemodynamics remained stable over time after prosthetic valve implantation and the long-term durability of J-Valve was convincing.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation after failed surgically implanted aortic bioprosthesis versus native transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis: Data from a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a treatment for aortic bioprosthesis failure in case of prohibitive risk for redo surgery. However, clinical evaluation of valve-in-valve TAVI remains limited by the number of patients analysed.

AIM

To evaluate outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVI compared with native aortic valve TAVI at a nationwide level in France.

METHODS

Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with TAVI for aortic stenosis or with isolated valve-in-valve TAVI for aortic bioprosthesis failure between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 44,218 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 2749 patients were analysed in each arm. At 30 days, no significant differences were observed regarding the occurrence of major clinical events (composite of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, major or life-threatening bleeding and conversion to open heart surgery) (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.01; P=0.32). During follow-up (mean 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the valve-in-valve TAVI and native TAVI groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.13; P=1.00).

CONCLUSION

We observed that valve-in-valve TAVI was associated with good short- and long-term outcomes. No significant differences were observed compared with native valve TAVI regarding clinical follow-up.

3-Year Outcomes After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprostheses: The PARTNER 2 Registry

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for degenerated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves is associated with favorable early outcomes. However, little is known about the durability and longer-term outcomes associated with this therapy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine late outcomes after valve-in-valve TAVR.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic degeneration of surgical aortic bioprostheses at high risk (≥50% major morbidity or mortality) for reoperative surgery were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 valve-in-valve and continued access registries. Three-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was obtained.

RESULTS

Valve-in-valve procedures were performed in 365 patients. The mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.1 ± 4.7%. At 3 years, the overall Kaplan-Meier estimate of all-cause mortality was 32.7%. Aortic valve re-replacement was required in 1.9%. Mean transaortic gradient was 35.0 mm Hg at baseline, decreasing to 17.8 mm Hg at 30-day follow-up and 16.6 mm Hg at 3-year follow-up. Baseline effective orifice area was 0.93 cm², increasing to 1.13 and 1.15 cm² at 30 days and 3 years, respectively. Moderate to severe aortic regurgitation was reduced from 45.1% at pre-TAVR baseline to 2.5% at 3 years. Importantly, moderate or severe mitral and tricuspid regurgitation also decreased (33.7% vs. 8.6% [p < 0.0001] and 29.7% vs. 18.8% [p = 0.002], respectively). Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 50.7%, increasing to 54.7% at 3 years (p < 0.0001), while left ventricular mass index was 136.4 g/m², decreasing to 109.1 g/m² at 3 years (p < 0.0001). New York Heart Association functional class improved, with 90.4% in class III or IV at baseline and 14.1% at 3 years (p < 0.0001), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score increased (43.1 to 73.1; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

At 3-year follow-up, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure was associated with favorable survival, sustained improved hemodynamic status, and excellent functional and quality-of-life outcomes. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II - PARTNER II - Nested Registry 3/Valve-in-Valve [PII NR3/ViV]; NCT03225001).

Advanced Heart Failure and End-Stage Heart Failure: Does a Difference Exist

Advanced heart failure (AdHF) represents a challenging aspect of heart failure patients. Because of worsening clinical symptoms, high rates of re-hospitalization and mortality, AdHF represents an unstable condition where standard treatments are inadequate and additional interventions must be applied. A heart transplant is considered the optimal therapy for AdHF, but the great problem linked to the scarcity of organs and long waiting lists have led to the use of mechanical circulatory support with ventricular-assist device (VAD) as a destination therapy. VAD placement improves the prognosis, functional status, and quality of life of AdHF patients, with high rates of survival at 1 year, similar to transplant. However, the key element is to select the right patient at the right moment. The complete assessment must include a careful clinical evaluation, but also take into account psychosocial factors that are of crucial importance in the out-of-hospital management. It is important to distinguish between AdHF and end-stage HF, for which advanced therapy interventions would be unreasonable due to severe and irreversible organ damage and, instead, palliative care should be preferred to improve quality of life and relief of suffering. The correct selection of patients represents a great issue to solve, both ethically and economically.

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.

Valve-in-Valve TAVR: State-of-the-Art Review

An increasing number of surgically implanted bioprostheses will require re-intervention for structural valve deterioration. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has become an alternative to reoperative surgery, currently approved for high-risk and inoperable patients. Challenges to the technique include higher rates of prosthesis–patient mismatch and coronary obstruction, compared to native valve TAVR. Herein, we review results of ViV TAVR and novel techniques to overcome the aforementioned challenges.

Temporal Trends on Percutaneous Mitral Commissurotomy: 30 Years of Experience

Background

Percutaneous mitral commissurotomy (PMC) was the first available transcatheter technique for treatment of mitral valve diseases. Experience has led to extending the indications to patients with less favorable characteristics. We aimed to analyze (1) the temporal trends in characteristic and outcomes of patients undergoing PMC in a single center over 30 years and (2) the predictive factors of poor immediate results of PMC.

Methods and Results

From 1987 to 2016, 1 full year for each decade was analyzed: 1987, 1996, 2006, and 2016. Poor immediate results of PMC were defined as a mitral valve area <1.5 cm² or MR (mitral regurgitation) grade >2. Mitral anatomy was assessed using the Cormier classification and the fluoroscopic extent of calcification. Six hundred three patients were included: 111, 202, 205, and 85, respectively. Mean age increased >10 years over time (P<0.0001). Mitral anatomy was less favorable over the years: the presence of calcification increased from 25% of patients at the beginning of PMC to >40% during the past decade (P<0.0001) with a 3‐fold increase in severe mitral calcification. Consistently, the proportion of good immediate results decreased over time (P<0.05) but remained at 76% in 2016. Multivariate analysis showed 3 predictive factors of poor immediate results: smaller baseline mitral valve area (P<0.0001), pre‐PMC MR grade 2 (P<0.01), and the presence or amount of calcification (P<0.001).

Conclusions

This clinic's patients became significantly older with more frequent and severe calcification in the past decade. Predictive factors of poor immediate results were related to valve anatomy, including calcification. Despite challenges raised by severe calcification, PMC was still successful in >3 out of 4 patients in recent years.

See Editorial Palacios

Aortic Stenosis and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Current Status and Future Directions in Korea

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been accepted as one of primary options for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Although TAVI has been predominantly used for patients at high risk or with old age who were not considered optimal candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), its indication is now expanding toward low risk profile and younger age. Many clinical trials are now ongoing to test the possibility of TAVI for use in patients even with uncharted indications who are not eligible for SAVR in current guidelines but may benefit from valve replacement. Current issues including periprocedural safety, long-term adverse events, hemodynamics and durability associated with TAVI should be also solved for expanding use of TAVI. The review presents current status and future directions of TAVI and discusses perspectives in Korea.