Bioprosthetic valve fracture: a practical guide

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.

Successful Rescue Transaortic Valve Replacement Using Edwards Sapien 3 Following Failed Evolut R Implantation in a Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: A Case Report

This study examines a complex scenario of structural valve degeneration (SVD) in a high surgical-risk patient with a previously implanted 25 mm Carpentier-Edwards (CE) Perimount Magna Ease 3300 (Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences) surgical bioprosthetic valve (SAV), the patient presented with both paravalvular leak (PVL) and central prosthetic valve insufficiency (PVI). The patient was considered for a transaortic valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention with a self-expanding 29 mm Evolut R valve (Minneapolis, MN: Medtronic). The case describes a ViV intervention complicated by the malpositioning of the Evolut R valve secondary to micro-dislodgement into the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) after deployment and subsequent migration into the LVOT during an attempted bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) of the SAV that aimed to decrease transvalvular gradients. The resulting acute severe PVL resulted in significant hemodynamic deterioration, necessitating emergent intervention by implanting a balloon-expandable 26 mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences), effectively averting the need for a surgical valve explant. This study illuminates the intricacies and emergency management strategies in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures, particularly in high-risk patients with SVD, and offers critical insights into the challenges and solutions in ViV implantations.

An unusual complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a case report

Background

Ventricular septal defect (VSD) is an unusual complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk factors are not well understood but may include oversizing, calcification amount and location, left-ventricular chamber morphology, and valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures. Percutaneous treatment is challenging but is usually the preferred option.

Case summary

An 80-year-old woman with two previous surgical aortic valve replacements was admitted to our Cardiology Department for decompensated heart failure. New bioprosthesis degeneration (19 mm Mitroflow™, Sorin Group, Canada) was observed with severe intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation. After evaluation, the heart team chose to perform ViV TAVI. Because of the high risk of coronary obstruction, chimney stenting of both coronary arteries was performed. A 23 mm self-expandable Navitor™ valve (Abbott, IL, USA) was implanted, but the Mitroflow™ valve had to be cracked to minimize the persistent high gradient. During valve fracture, the non-compliant balloon broke and a small iatrogenic VSD appeared. However, the patient remained stable, so conservative management was selected. During follow-up, she developed severe haemolytic anaemia and heart failure; therefore, percutaneous closure of the iatrogenic VSD was performed twice, which was a difficult challenge.

Discussion

A viable alternative to redo surgery is ViV TAVI. Risks include higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction. Occasionally, bioprosthetic valve fracture is required, particularly in small bioprostheses, to achieve low gradients. Anecdotally, fracture has led to annular rupture and VSD. Most VSDs are small and without clinical or haemodynamic repercussions; however, in symptomatic cases, percutaneous closure is a viable alternative to surgery.

A Case of TAV-in-SAV in a Patient with Structural Valve Deterioration after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with the INSPIRIS RESILIA Valve

The INSPIRIS RESILIA valve is designed to dilate its valve annulus in transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV), a catheter therapy for biological valve deterioration. RESILIA tissue has improved anti-calcification properties. An 83-year-old man on hemodialysis undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a 25-mm INSPIRIS for severe aortic stenosis 22 months ago presented with general malaise. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed severe bioprosthetic stenosis (peak velocity: 3.5 m/s, mean pressure gradient: 32 mmHg, and effective orifice area: 0.45 cm2) and severely reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction: 17%). Because redo-SAVR was extremely risky (society of thoracic surgeons [STS] risk score: 31%), the patient underwent transfemoral-TAV-in-SAV using a 26-mm SAPIEN 3️. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography showed that the internal diameter of the INSPIRIS had expanded from 22.2 mm to 24.2 mm. This case demonstrated the dilatable design of INSPIRIS but not the durability of RESILIA tissue.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From Pre-Procedural Planning to Procedural Scenarios and Possible Complications

Over the last decades, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) have been increasingly implanted instead of mechanical valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a common issue at follow-up and can justify the need for a reintervention. In the evolving landscape of interventional cardiology, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a remarkable innovation to address the complex challenges of patients previously treated with SAVR and has rapidly gained prominence as a feasible technique especially in patients at high surgical risk. On the other hand, the expanding indications for TAVR in progressively younger patients with severe aortic stenosis pose the crucial question on the long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), as patients might outlive the bioprosthetic valve. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of ViV TAVR for failed surgical and transcatheter BHVs, with a specific focus on current clinical evidence, pre-procedural planning, procedural techniques, and possible complications. The combination of integrated Heart Team discussion with interventional growth curve makes it possible to achieve best ViV TAVR results and avoid complications or put oneself ahead of time from them.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Large First-in-Human 13-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Favourable early outcomes have been reported following valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). However, reports of long-term outcomes are lacking. We aimed to evaluate early and late outcomes in a large first-in-human valve-in-valve TMVR 13-year experience.

METHODS

All patients undergoing valve-in-valve TMVR in our centre from 2008 to 2021 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, defined according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium, were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were analysed: mean age 76.8 ± 10.2 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10.7 ± 6.8%, 55.4% female, 63.9% transapical access. Thirty-day mortality was 2.5% for the total population and 0.0% after transseptal TMVR. Maximum follow-up was 13.1 years. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (interquartile range 1.8-5.3 years), 55 patients (46.2%) died, mainly from noncardiovascular causes. Valve hemodynamics were acceptable at 5 years, with 2.5% structural dysfunction. Patients treated from 2016 on (n = 68; 57.1%), following the advent of routine use of the Sapien 3 valve, CT screening, and transseptal access, were compared with those treated before 2016 (n = 51; 42.9%). Patients from 2016 on had a higher technical success rate (100.0% vs 94.1%; P = 0.04), shorter hospitalisation (P < 0.001), trending lower 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.4) and better 5-year survival (74.7% vs 41.1%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve TMVR can be performed with little morbidity and low mortality. Mid- to long-term survival remains limited owing to advanced age and comorbidities. Structural bioprosthetic valve dysfunction was rare and redo TMVR feasible in selected patients. Outcomes continue to improve, but the role for valve-in-valve TMVR in lower surgical risk patients remains unclear.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Perceval Bioprosthesis: Clinical and Technical Aspects in 32 Cases

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic bioprostheses are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross-clamp time and facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. As the use of sutureless valves has increased over the past decade, we begin to encounter their degeneration. We describe clinical outcomes and technical aspects in patients with degenerated sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and March 2023, 1310 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Severe bioprosthesis degeneration treated with VIV-TAVR occurred in 32 patients with a mean of 6.4 ± 1.9 years (range: 2-10 years) after first implantation. Mean EuroSCORE II was 9.5 ± 6.4% (range: 1.9-35.1%).

RESULTS

Thirty of thirty-two (94%) VIV-TAVR were performed via transfemoral and two (6%) via transapical approach. Vascular complications occurred in two patients (6%), and mean hospital stay was 4.6 ± 2.4 days. At mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 15.2 months (range: 1-50 months), survival was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 18.7 ± 5.3 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

VIV-TAVR is a useful option for degenerated Perceval and appears safe and effective. This procedure is associated with good clinical results and excellent hemodynamic performance in our largest single-center experience.

Conformational changes during in vitro balloon fracture of internal aortic annuloplasty ring

OBJECTIVE

HAART 300 300 (BioStable Science and Engineering, Inc) aortic annuloplasty rings restore physiologic annular geometry during aortic valve repair. Transcatheter valve-in-ring implantation is appealing for recurrent valve dysfunction but may necessitate balloon fracture of downsized annuloplasty rings. We characterized the feasibility of ring fracture and changes in ring geometry preceding fracture.

METHODS

The 19-mm, 21-mm, and 23-mm HAART 300 annuloplasty rings were obtained, and 23-mm, 24-mm, 25-mm, and 26-mm valvuloplasty balloons were obtained. Under continuous fluoroscopy and video recording, a 23-mm balloon was inflated within a 19-mm ring at 1 atm/s until ring fracture or balloon failure occurred. If balloon failure occurred, experiments were sequentially repeated with 1-mm upsized balloons until ring fracture occurred or no larger-sized balloons were available.

RESULTS

Upon balloon inflation, all rings exhibited an irreversible conformational change from an elliptical, annular geometry to a circular shape with ring posts flaring outward. A 23-mm balloon burst at 21 atm without fracturing the 19-mm ring. The 24-mm balloon fractured the 19-mm ring at 15 atm. Likewise, a 24-mm balloon ruptured at 18 atm without fracturing the 21-mm annuloplasty ring. A 25-mm balloon fractured the 21-mm ring at 18 atm. Finally, a 26-mm balloon burst at 20 atm without fracturing a 23-mm annuloplasty ring, but it did elicit the confirmational changes described. All fractures occurred along the upslope of a ring post. The exposed metal frame was visible after the 21-mm ring fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture of HAART 300 aortic annuloplasty rings is possible with an oversized, high-pressure balloon. However, the geometrical changes in the ring and subsequent rupture of its fabric covering may be obstacles to safe, in vivo ring fracture.

Bioprosthetic Valve Remodeling in Nonfracturable Surgical Valves: Impact on THV Expansion and Hydrodynamic Performance

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the effect of bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) on transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and function following valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a nonfracturable surgical heart valve (SHV).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the impact of BVR of nonfracturable SHVs on THVs after VIV implantation.

METHODS

VIV TAVR was performed using 23-mm SAPIEN3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences) or 23/26-mm Evolut Pro (Medtronic) THVs implanted in 21/23-mm Trifecta (Abbott Structural Heart) and 21/23-mm Hancock (Medtronic) SHVs with BVR performed with a noncompliant TRUE balloon (Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc). Hydrodynamic assessment was performed, and multimodality imaging including micro-computed tomography was performed before and after BVR to assess THV and SHV expansion.

RESULTS

BVR resulted in limited improvement of THV expansion. The largest gain in expansion was observed for the S3 in the 21-mm Trifecta with up to a 12.7% increase in expansion at the outflow of the valve. Minimal change was observed at the level of the sewing ring. The Hancock was less amenable to BVR with lower final expansion dimensions than the Trifecta. BVR also resulted in notable surgical post flaring of up to 17.6°, which was generally more marked with the S3 than with the Evolut Pro. Finally, BVR resulted in very limited improvement in hydrodynamic function. Severe pinwheeling was observed with the S3, which improved slightly but persisted despite BVR.

CONCLUSIONS

When performing VIV TAVR inside a Trifecta and Hancock SHV, BVR had a limited impact on THV expansion and resulted in SHV post flaring with unknown consequences on coronary obstruction risk and long-term THV function.

Timing of bioprosthetic valve fracture in transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention: impact on valve durability and leaflet integrity

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) can be used to improve transcatheter heart valve (THV) haemodynamics following a valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention. However, whether BVF should be performed before or after THV deployment and the implications on durability are unknown.  Aims: We sought to assess the impact of BVF timing on long-term THV durability.

METHODS

The impact of BVF timing was assessed using small ACURATE neo (ACn) or 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3) THV deployed in 21 mm Mitroflow valves compared to no-BVF controls. Valves underwent accelerated wear testing up to 200 million (M) cycles (equivalent to 5 years). At 200M cycles, THV were evaluated by hydrodynamic testing, second-harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histology.

RESULTS

At 200M cycles, the regurgitant fraction (RF) and effective orifice area (EOA) for the ACn were 8.03±0.30%/1.74±0.01 cm2 (no BVF), 12.48±0.70%/1.97±0.02 cm2 (BVF before ViV) and 9.29±0.38%/2.21±0.0 cm2 (BVF after ViV), respectively. For the S3 these values were 2.63±0.51%/1.26±0.01 cm2, 2.03±0.42%/1.65±0.01 cm2, and 1.62±0.38%/2.22±0.01 cm2, respectively. Further, SHG and SEM revealed a higher degree of superficial leaflet damage when BVF was performed after ViV for the ACn and S3. However, the histological analysis revealed significantly less damage, as determined by matrix density analysis, through the entire leaflet thickness when BVF was performed after ViV with the S3 and a similar but non-significant trend with the ACn.  Conclusions: BVF performed after ViV appears to offer superior long-term EOA without increased RF. Ultrastructure leaflet analysis reveals that the timing of BVF can differentially impact leaflets, with more superficial damage but greater preservation of overall leaflet structure when BVF is performed after ViV.

Management of Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Mitigating Complications and Optimizing Outcomes

The use of bioprosthetic prostheses during surgical aortic valve replacements has increased dramatically over the last two decades, accounting for over 85% of surgical implantations. Given limited long-term durability, there has been an increase in aortic valve reoperations and reinterventions. With the advent of new technologies, multiple treatment strategies are available to treat bioprosthetic valve failure, including valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, ViV TAVR has an increased risk of higher gradients and patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) secondary to placing the new valve within the rigid frame of the prior valve, especially in patients with a small surgical bioprosthesis in situ. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows for placement of a larger transcatheter valve, as well as a fully expanded transcatheter valve, decreasing postoperative gradients and the risk of PPM.

The first report of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation within the expandable Inspiris Resilia® bioprosthetic valve

A 61-year-old male who underwent aortic valve replacement with an Inspiris Resilia® aortic bioprosthetic through an upper partial sternotomy due to severe aortic valve stenosis was presented 1 year later to our hospital suffering from dyspnoea and chest pain. The transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated moderate haemodynamic structural valve deterioration with a mean gradient of 29 mmHg and a valve area of 0.9 cm2. Due to relatively high-risk of reoperation, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Sapien 3® 29 mm, followed by balloon valvuloplasty, was successfully performed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published case of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement into a degenerated Inspiris Resilia® aortic valve.

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.