Incidence and mechanisms of bioprosthetic dysfunction after transcatheter implantation of a mechanically-expandable heart valve

Increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with mechanically expandable transcatheter aortic valve and without permanent pacemaker

INTRODUCTION

Use of the mechanically expandable transcatheter aortic valve (MEV) has been recently linked to increased risks of valve dysfunction and cardiovascular mortality. The risk of developing conduction disturbance with the MEV valve is well known, and the negative prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is another consideration.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the mid-term survival of patients with MEV and self-expandable valves (SEV), and to examine survival of both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI.

METHODS

This single-centre, retrospective, observational study examined data from MEV and SEV groups comprising 92 and 373 patients, respectively. The mean clinical follow-up was 2.5±1.7 years. Mortality information was obtained from the National Institutes of Health Information and Statistics.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The log-rank test showed higher cardiovascular mortality in the MEV group (p=0.042; the relative risk (RR) 1.594 (95% CI 1.013 to 2.508)). The Cox proportional hazards model identified MEV implantation as an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality. The rate of PPI was twice as high in the MEV vs SEV group (33.7% vs 16.1%; p<0.001). We compared the survival of both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI and found higher mortality in the MEV group without PPI versus the SEV group without PPI (p=0.007; RR 2.156 (95% CI 1.213 to 3.831)). Survival did not differ in the groups with PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher mid-term cardiovascular mortality rate was observed with MEV versus SEV implants. Comparing both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI, we observed a higher mortality risk in patients with MEV without PPI than in SEV without PPI. In contrast, mortality did not differ between the groups when PPI was implanted.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Thrombosis and Literature Review

An 83-year-old gentleman with a history of 23-mm Hancock-II-bioprosthetic aortic valve (BAV) replacement ten-years prior presented with symptoms of dyspnea and lower extremity edema. During the preceding seven-years, he had been noted to have asymptomatic increased mean transvalvular gradients (MG; 36–50 mmHg) felt to be due to either early bioprosthetic degeneration, pannus formation, or patient–prosthesis mismatch. An echocardiogram at the time of symptom development demonstrated significant flow acceleration through the aortic valve, mild regurgitation, and severely increased MG (48 mmHg) with prolonged acceleration time (AT, 140 msec). A trial of warfarin anticoagulation resulted in dramatic improvement after only 6 weeks with laminar flow through the AV, near-total resolution of regurgitation, and a decrease in MG to 14 mmHg and AT to 114 msec. These findings strongly suggest that BAV thrombosis was the predominant mechanism responsible for the longstanding high MG. Our case highlights that BAV thrombosis should be considered in the differential of elevated gradients regardless of the age of prosthesis, and that a trial of warfarin anticoagulation may be beneficial even if elevated gradients have been present for a prolonged period. Valvular gradients are often abnormal long before a formal diagnosis; however, these may reverse quickly with anticoagulation therapy.