Transcatheter aortic valves inadequately relieve stenosis in small degenerated bioprostheses

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, with Present-Day Innovations and Up-to-Date Techniques

Approximately 51,000 to 65,000 surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) cases are performed in the United States anually. Bioprosthetic degeneration commonly occurs within 10 to 15 years, and nearly 800 redo SAVR cases occur each year. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative, as the Food and Drug Administration approved ViV TAVR with self-expanding transcatheter heart valve in 2015 and balloon-expandable valve in 2017 for failed surgical valves cases at high risk of reoperation. We review ViV TAVR, with specific attention to procedural planning, technical challenges, associated complications, and long-term follow-up.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. A minimalist approach without contrast aortography or echocardiographic guidance

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate safety, feasibility and short-term clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation under local anesthesia without contrast aortography or echocardiographic guidance.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter ViV implantation is an emerging treatment modality for patients with degenerative surgical bioprostheses. Given the radiopaque properties of the surgical aortic valve (SAV) frame, ViV procedures can often be performed with fluoroscopic guidance alone.

METHODS

ViV implantation was performed in 37 patients with SAV failure under local anesthesia without contrast aortography. Clinical and echocardiographic data were obtained at baseline, discharge, and 30 days.

RESULTS

Mean age was 74 ± 10 years and STS predicted risk of mortality was 5.6 ± 2.4%. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 39.4 ± 15.5 mmHg to 13 ± 6.3 mmHg at discharge (p < .001), and 20 ± 7.5 mmHg at 30 days (p < .001 compared to baseline), aortic valve area increased from 0.9 ± 0.3 cm² to 1.2 ± 0.4 cm² at 30 days (p = .007). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation. Hospital discharge occurred at a median of 2.6 ± 4.4 days. At 30-day follow-up there were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, strokes, repeat hospital admissions for heart failure, or renal failure. One patient (2.7%) required a new pacemaker. 93% of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter aortic ViV implantation for selected patients with degenerative surgical bioprostheses under local anesthesia without aortography or echocardiographic guidance is feasible and safe.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed surgical valves

Aortic valve-in-valve is a less invasive alternative to surgical redo in the treatment of failed bioprosthetic valves. While only inoperable patients underwent the procedure before, operators currently offer it to those at lower risk and worldwide experience is in the thousands. Early mortality has diminished in recent analyses and improvements in symptoms and quality of life have been documented. Main considerations with aortic valve-in-valve include elevated postprocedural gradients, coronary obstruction and leaflet thrombosis. Risk factors for each of these adverse events have been described at length. Aortic valve-in-valve offers a safe and effective option in the management of failed bioprosthetic valves.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedure in Patients with Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Deterioration

Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard procedure to treat patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency. Bioprosthetic valves are used for surgical aortic valve replacement with a much greater prevalence than mechanical valves. However, bioprosthetic valves may fail over time because of structural valve deterioration; this often requires intervention due to severe bioprosthetic valve stenosis or regurgitation or a combination of both. In select patients, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement is performed by implanting a transcatheter heart valve within a failing bioprosthetic valve. The transcatheter ViV operation is a less invasive procedure compared with reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement, but it has been associated with specific complications and requires extensive preoperative work-up and planning by the heart team. Data from experimental studies and analyses of results from clinical procedures have led to strategies to improve outcomes of these procedures. The type, size, and implant position of the transcatheter valve can be optimized for individual patients with knowledge of detailed dimensions of the surgical valve and radiographic and echocardiographic measurements of the patient's anatomy. Understanding the complexities of the ViV procedure can lead surgeons to make choices during the original surgical valve implantation that can make a future ViV operation more technically feasible years before it is required.

Optimising the Haemodynamics of Aortic Valve-in-valve Procedures

Bioprosthetic surgical valves are increasingly implanted during cardiac surgery, instead of mechanical valves. These tissue valves are associated with limited durability and as a result transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures are performed to treat failed bioprostheses. A relatively common adverse event of aortic valve-in-valve procedures is residual stenosis. Larger surgical valve size, supra-annular transcatheter heart valve type, as well as higher transcatheter heart valve implantation depth, have all been shown to reduce the incidence of elevated post-procedural gradients. With greater understanding of technical considerations and surgical planning, valve-in-valve procedures could be more effective and eventually may become the standard of care for our increasingly ageing and comorbid population with failed surgical bioprostheses.

Transcatheter heart valve in valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve for different degenerated bioprosthetic valve positions (First Iranian ViV report with mid-term follow up)

Introduction: After early successful experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), concept of transcatheter implantation of a new valve within a failing bioprosthetic valve emerged. Valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation seems to be a simpler option for high risk surgical patients.

Methods: We performed five ViV procedures in different valve positions. We included patients with failing bioprosthetic valves with high surgical risk due to concomitant comorbidities. We performed 2 transapical ViV procedures for failing mitral bioprosthetic valves, 1 transfemoral procedure for failing pulmonary valve and 2 transfemoral ViV implantation for failing tricuspid bioprosthetic valves.

Results: The procedures were successfully completed in all 5 cases with initial excellent fluoroscopic and echocardiographic verification. There was no valve embolization or paravalvular leakage in any of the cases. Transcatheter valve function was appropriate with echocardiography. Post procedural clinical adverse events like pleural effusion and transient ischemic attack were managed successfully. In midterm follow up all cases remained in appropriate functional class except from the transcatheter pulmonary valve which became moderately stenotic and regurgitant.

Conclusion: As the first Iranian all-comers case series with midterm follow up for ViV implantation, we had no mortality. Interestingly none of our patients had neurologic sequelae after the procedure. Midterm follow up for our patients was acceptable with good functional class and appropriate echocardiographic findings. Due to high surgical risk of the redo procedure after failing of a bioprosthetic valve especially in elderly patients with comorbidities, ViV implantation would be a good alternative to surgery for this high risk group.

In vitro evaluation of implantation depth in valve-in-valve using different transcatheter heart valves

AIMS

Transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) offers an alternative therapy for high-risk patients. Elevated post-procedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to assess the relationship between depth of implantation and haemodynamics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Commercially available THVs used for ViV were included in the analysis (CoreValve Evolut, SAPIEN XT and the Portico valve). THVs were implanted in small surgical valves (label size 19 mm) to simulate boundary conditions. Custom-mounted pulse duplicators registered relevant haemodynamic parameters. Twenty-eight experiments were performed (13 CVE, 5 SXT and 10 Portico). Ranges of depth of implantation were: CVE: -1.2 mm to 15.7 mm; SXT: -2.2 mm to 7.5 mm; Portico: 1.4 mm to 12.1 mm. Polynomial regression established a relationship between depth of implantation and valvular mean gradients (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.01; Portico: p=0.002), as well as with EOA (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.02; Portico valve: p=0.003). In addition, leaflet coaptation was better in the high implantation experiments for all valves.

CONCLUSIONS

The current comprehensive bench testing assessment demonstrates the importance of high device position for the attainment of optimal haemodynamics during aortic ViV procedures.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a Sapien 3 Commander 20 mm valves in patients with degenerated 19 mm bioprosthetic aortic valve

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve has been successfully performed as an alternative to surgery. We describe our initial experience of valve-in-valve TAVI in five patients, using new generation Edwards Sapien 3 transcatheter heart valves implanted into degenerated 19 mm bioprosthetic valves. 20-mm Edwards S3 valves were offered for compassionate use. All patients had significant aortic valve stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The main vascular access was achieved and pre-closed with two Proglide closure devices in one patient and Prostar closure devices in four patients. For each TAVI procedure an Edwards 14 French sheath was inserted without complication and sutured in place. The Sapien 3 Commander delivery system was inserted and the valve was aligned in the descending aorta. The 20-mm Sapien 3 valve was deployed with slow continuous inflation during rapid right ventricular pacing. The cranial edge of the Edwards S3 valve was aligned with the cranial radiopaque markers of bioprosthesis to minimize paravalvular leak. Post-deployment angiography, transesophageal echocardiography and aortogram confirmed absence of mild aortic insufficiency and no increase in trans-aortic gradient when compared to a naïve 19 mm bioprosthetic valve.

CONCLUSION

Valve-in-valve TAVI with the Edwards S3 transcatheter heart valve for degenerative bioprosthetic aortic valves is technically feasible. The proper position of the stented valve minimizes the risk for post-procedure paravalvular insufficiency and provides good transaortic pressure gradient. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Effect of transcatheter aortic valve size and position on valve-in-valve hemodynamics: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter heart valve implantation in failed aortic bioprostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]) is an increasingly used therapeutic option for high-risk patients. However, high postprocedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to evaluate Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R ViV hemodynamics in relation to the degree of device oversizing and depth of implantation.

METHODS

Evolut R devices of 23 and 26 mm were implanted within 21-, 23-, and 25-mm Hancock II bioprostheses. Small and gradual changes in implantation depth were attempted. Hemodynamic testing was performed in a pulse duplicator under ISO-5840 standard.

RESULTS

A total of 47 bench-testing experiments were performed. The mean gradient of the 26-mm Evolut R in 23- and 25-mm Hancock II was lower than 23-mm Evolut R (P < .001). However, the mean gradient of 26-mm Evolut R in 21-mm Hancock II bioprostheses R (ranging from 21.30 ± 0.23 to 24.30 ± 0.22 mm Hg) was worse than 23-mm Evolut R (ranging from 15.94 ± 0.18 to 20.35 ± 0.16 mm Hg, P < .001). Furthermore, our results suggest that supra-annular implantation of 23-mm and 26-mm Evolut R devices within the bioprostheses can lead to lower gradient and improved leaflet coaptation. Regardless of implantation depth, superior transvalvular gradient is expected with 26-mm Evolut R than 23-mm Evolut R in a nonstenotic Hancock II with a true internal diameter > 17.5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The current comprehensive bench-testing assessment demonstrates the importance of both transcatheter heart valve size and device position for the attainment of optimal hemodynamics during ViV procedures. Additional in vitro testing may be required to develop hemodynamics-based guidelines for device sizing in ViV procedures in degenerated surgical bioprostheses.

On the Mechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) represent the latest advances in prosthetic heart valve technology. TAVs are truly transformational as they bring the benefit of heart valve replacement to patients that would otherwise not be operated on. Nevertheless, like any new device technology, the high expectations are dampened with growing concerns arising from frequent complications that develop in patients, indicating that the technology is far from being mature. Some of the most common complications that plague current TAV devices include malpositioning, crimp-induced leaflet damage, paravalvular leak, thrombosis, conduction abnormalities and prosthesis-patient mismatch. In this article, we provide an in-depth review of the current state-of-the-art pertaining the mechanics of TAVs while highlighting various studies guiding clinicians, regulatory agencies, and next-generation device designers.

Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture During Valve-in-valve TAVR: Bench to Bedside

Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been established as a safe and effective means of treating failed surgical bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) in patients at high risk for complications related to reoperation. Patients who undergo VIV TAVR are at risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch, as the transcatheter heart valve (THV) is implanted within the ring of the existing BPV, limiting full expansion and reducing the maximum achievable effective orifice area of the THV. Importantly, patient-prosthesis mismatch and high residual transvalvular gradients are associated with reduced survival following VIV TAVR. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) is as a novel technique to address this problem. During BPV, a non-compliant valvuloplasty balloon is positioned within the BPV frame, and a highpressure balloon inflation is performed to fracture the surgical sewing ring of the BPV. This allows for further expansion of the BPV as well as the implanted THV, thus increasing the maximum effective orifice area that can be achieved after VIV TAVR. This review focuses on the current evidence base for BVF to facilitate VIV TAVR, including initial bench testing, procedural technique, clinical experience and future directions.

Hydrodynamic Assessment of Aortic Valves Prepared from Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa

Infants and children born with severe cardiac valve lesions have no effective long term treatment options since currently available tissue or mechanical prosthetic valves have sizing limitations and no avenue to accommodate the growth of the pediatric patient. Tissue engineered heart valves (TEHVs) which could provide for growth, self-repair, infection resistance, and long-term replacement could be an ideal solution. Porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS) has recently emerged as a potentially attractive bioscaffold for TEHVs. PSIS may possess the ability to recruit endogenous cardiovascular cells, leading to phenotypically-matched replacement tissue when the scaffold has completely degraded. Our group has successfully implanted custom-made PSIS valves in 4 infants with critical valve defects in whom standard bioprosthetic or mechanical valves were not an option. Short term clinical follow-up has been promising. However, no hydrodynamic data has been reported to date on these valves. The purpose of this study was to assess the functional effectiveness of tri-leaflet PSIS bioscaffolds in the aortic position compared to standard tri-leaflet porcine bioprosthetic valves. Hydrodynamic evaluation of acute PSIS function was conducted using a left heart simulator in our laboratory. Our results demonstrated similar flow and pressure profiles (p > 0.05) between the PSIS valves and the control valves. However, forward flow energy losses were found to be significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the PSIS valves compared to the controls possibly as a result of stiffer material properties of PSIS relative to glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine valve tissue. Our findings suggest that optimization of valve dimensions and shape may be important in accelerating de novo valve tissue growth and avoidance of long-term complications associated with higher energy losses (e.g. left ventricular hypertrophy). Furthermore, long term animal and clinical studies will be needed in order to conclusively address somatic growth potential of PSIS valves.

Flow-Induced Damage to Blood Cells in Aortic Valve Stenosis

Valvular hemolysis and thrombosis are common complications associated with stenotic heart valves. This study aims to determine the extent to which hemodynamics induce such traumatic events. The viscous shear stress downstream of a severely calcified bioprosthetic valve was evaluated via in vitro 2D particle image velocimetry measurements. The blood cell membrane response to the measured stresses was then quantified using 3D immersed-boundary computational simulations. The shear stress level at the boundary layer of the jet flow formed downstream of the valve orifice was observed to reach a maximum of 1000-1700 dyn/cm(2), which was beyond the threshold values reported for platelet activation (100-1000 dyn/cm(2)) and within the range of thresholds reported for red blood cell (RBC) damage (1000-2000 dyn/cm(2)). Computational simulations demonstrated that the resultant tensions at the RBC membrane surface were unlikely to cause instant rupture, but likely to lead to membrane plastic failure. The resultant tensions at the platelet surface were also calculated and the potential damage was discussed. It was concluded that although shear-induced thrombotic trauma is very likely in stenotic heart valves, instant hemolysis is unlikely and the shear-induced damage to RBCs is mostly subhemolytic.

Transcathether Valve Replacement and Valve Repair

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for treatment of aortic stenosis has now become an accepted alternative to surgical valve replacement for some patients. In addition, transcatheter mitral valve repair is also routinely used in high surgical risk patients with mitral regurgitation. Other transcatheter procedures are in rapid development. The current review attempts to summarize the procedures and echocardiographic imaging used for transcatheter valve replacement or valve repair.

The Effect of Valve-in-Valve Implantation Height on Sinus Flow

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) has proven to be a successful treatment for high risk patients with failing aortic surgical bioprostheses. However, thrombus formation on the leaflets of the valve has emerged as a major issue in such procedures, posing a risk of restenosis, thromboembolism, and reduced durability. In this work we attempted to understand the effect of deployment position of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) on the spatio-temporal flow field within the sinus in VIV-TAVR. Experiments were performed in an in vitro pulsatile left heart simulator using high-speed Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) to measure the flow field in the sinus region. The time-resolved velocity data was used to understand the qualitative and quantitative flow patterns. In addition, a particle tracking technique was used to evaluate relative thrombosis risk via sinus washout. The velocity data demonstrate that implantation position directly affects sinus flow patterns, leading to increased flow stagnation with increasing deployment height. The particle tracking simulations showed that implantation position directly affected washout time, with the highest implantation resulting in the least washout. These results clearly demonstrate the flow pattern and flow stagnation in the sinus is sensitive to THV position. It is, therefore, important for the interventional cardiologist and cardiac surgeon to consider how deployment position could impact flow stagnation during VIV-TAVR.

Recurrent severe aortic stenosis one year after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: Successful treatment with balloon aortic valvuloplasty

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) implantation has evolved as one of the primary therapeutic modalities in patients with failed surgical bioprosthesis allowing a reduction in rate of surgical reintervention. We report a case of a 90-year-old woman who had previously undergone aortic valve replacement with 21-mm Carpentier-Edwards valve in 1999 followed by 23 mm Sapien VIV in March 2013. She developed severe recurrent aortic stenosis 1-year post-VIV which was successfully treated with balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). BAV can be a favorable treatment option allowing considerable symptomatic relief and improvement in performance of daily activities in extreme age patients who develop restenosis after VIV implantation and are high-risk candidates for both redo-surgical aortic valve replacement and redo-VIV implantation. <Learning objective: Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) implantation has become the most utilized surgical alternative in patients with failed bioprosthetic valves. However, known procedural complications include increased risk of coronary obstruction, elevated post-procedural gradients, and risk of valvular restenosis. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty allows significant symptomatic relief and can successfully be performed in patients developing severe symptomatic aortic valve restenosis following VIV implantation.>.

Valve-in-valve implantations: is this the new standard for degenerated bioprostheses? Review of the literature

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has established itself as an alternative treatment for patients with valvular disease. In the current context of increasing bioprosthetic valve implants and an ageing population with growing comorbidities, a less invasive approach to the treatment of bioprosthetic dysfunction would be an appealing alternative to the standard of care. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation could be an alternative for patients who are deemed to be a high surgical risk. The valve-in-valve procedure is a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure where a valve can be implanted directly within a failing bioprosthetic valve. This technique can be applied to dysfunctional aortic bioprosthetic valves and can also be used in the pulmonary and atrioventricular valve bioprosthesis. We review the current literature to assess whether this technique may be the new standard for degenerated bioposthesis.

The current state and future directions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains the standard of care for most patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative option for patients with symptomatic AS who have a prohibitive risk profile for SAVR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Bioprosthetic Surgical Valves

Background—

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry.

Methods and Results—

The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients.

Conclusions—

The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation 10-year anniversary: review of current evidence and clinical implications

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is currently the standard of care to treat patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and is generally accepted to alleviate symptoms and prolong survival. Based on the results of randomized trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the new standard of care for patients with symptomatic AS who are deemed 'inoperable'. Debatably, TAVI is also an alternative to SAVR in selected patients who are at high risk but operable. As we approach 10 years of clinical experience with TAVI, with over 50 000 implantations in 40 countries, a review of the current literature and clinical outcomes with this rapidly evolving technology is appropriate.

Transcatheter Edwards Sapien XT valve in valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses via transfemoral access

OBJECTIVES

Surgical treatment of degenerated aortic bioprostheses is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, especially in elderly patients with significant co-morbidities. Therefore, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) performed as valve in valve technique appears as an attractive alternative treatment option. We report of a case series of seven patients with dysfunctional bioprosthetic aortic heart valves who have been treated with TAVI via transfemoral access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Valve in valve implantation using the Edwards Sapien XT bioprostheses (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA, USA) was performed in eight patients (3 men, 5 women, mean age 85.3 ± 6.1 years) with a high operative risk (logistic euroSCORE 27.2 ± 7.3). Six patients underwent TAVI because of high grade stenosis of the aortic bioprostheses, whereas two patients presented with high grade regurgitation. All patients suffered at least from NYHA class III dyspnea during admission. TAVI was successfully performed via transfemoral access under local anesthesia with mild analgesic medication in all cases. Mild aortic regurgitation occurred in three patients while no permanent pacemaker implantation was required. Major cardiac events or cerebrovascular events did not occur. One aneurysm spurium, with the need of one blood transfusion, occurred. All patients improved at least one NYHA class within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

TAVI for degenerated aortic bioprostheses, using the Edwards Sapien XT valve via transfemoral access is a feasible option for patients at high surgical risk.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve-in-valve implantation for a failed xenograft

A 78-year-old gentleman with a diagnosis of symptomatic severe xenograft aortic stenosis with multiple comorbidities was referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, that is, a "valve-in-valve" procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was performed by transapical approach using a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis. During valve deployment, the prosthesis moved toward the left ventricle and a second balloon-expandable valve was implanted within the first one-a "valve-in-valve-in-valve" to avoid further ventricular embolization of the first bioprosthesis. Echocardiography at hospital discharge showed a residual mean transvalvular gradient of 17 mm Hg and trivial paravalvular aortic regurgitation. At 1 year follow-up, the patient was in New York Heart Association functional class II.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing bioprosthetic valves

Transcatheter valve implantation is becoming an alternative to conventional surgical valve replacement in patients at high surgical risk. While experience and acceptance with transcatheter techniques increased rapidly, transcatheter valve implantation within failing bioprostheses has emerged as a new concept (valve-in-valve implantation). Currently, the majority of prostheses implanted in patients are bioprosthetic valves that are expected to degenerate over time. Valve-in-valve implantation provides great utility in high-operative-risk patients since the mortality risk for reoperation can be significantly higher than for first-time isolated valve replacement. Although two current devices are CE Mark approved in Europe for implantation within native valves, off-label clinical implementation of valve-in-valve have been described in numerous case reports. In this article, we provide an overview of transcatheter valve implantation in failing bioprostheses with an emphasis on the aortic position.