Urgent Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve Replacement With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Critical mitral valve stenosis due to a failed bioprosthetic valve is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with the transcatheter Valve-in-Valve (ViV) approach becoming a popular treatment option. We present a case of cardiogenic shock secondary to a stenotic mitral bio-prosthetic valve. The Heart team was consulted; the patient was a high-risk surgical candidate for valve replacement. He required venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to definitive therapy. The patient underwent a successful urgent transcatheter mitral ViV procedure with a trans-septal approach. Follow-up echocardiography showed significant improvement in mitral valve dynamics. Recently emerging transcatheter approaches for mitral ViV implantation after balloon valvuloplasty into a failed mitral valve prosthesis are technically feasible in high-risk patient populations and should be considered over re-operative mitral valve surgery.

Emergent transcatheter mitral valve implantation: Early and mid-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) may be attractive to treat high-risk patients with mitral bioprosthesis or annuloplasty ring failure or severe mitral annular calcification.

AIM

To report the outcomes of patients after valve-in-valve/ring/mitral annular calcification TMVI using balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valves, according to the degree of urgency of the procedure.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TMVI in our centre from 2010 to 2021 were classified into three groups: elective, urgent or emergent/salvage TMVI.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were included: 129 (82.2%) had elective, 21 (13.4%) urgent and 7 (4.4%) had emergent/salvage TMVI. Patients with emergent/salvage TMVI had a higher EuroSCORE II: elective, 7.3%; urgent, 9.7%; emergent/salvage, 54.5% (P<0.0001). The indication for TMVI was bioprosthesis failure in all of the emergent/salvage group, in 13 of the urgent group (61.9%) and in 62 of the elective group (48.1%). Overall, the technical success rate of TMVI was 86%, and was similar in the three groups (elective, 86.1%; urgent, 95.2%; emergent/salvage, 71.4%). The cumulative survival rate at 2-year follow-up was lower in the emergent/salvage group than in the elective or urgent group (42.9% vs 71.2% for the elective group; 76.2% for the urgent group; log-rank test, P=0.012). The excess mortality in the emergent/salvage group occurred during the first month postprocedure. Thereafter, the 30-day landmark analysis did not show any more statistical difference between the three groups (log-rank test, P=0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergent/salvage TMVI was associated with high early mortality, but 1-month survivors had similar outcomes to patients with elective/urgent TMVI. The degree of urgency of the procedure should not prevent TMVI in high-risk patients.

Transcatheter mitral valve implantation for degenerated mitral bioprostheses or failed surgical annuloplasty rings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMVIV) and valve-in-ring (TMVIR) implantation for degenerated mitral bioprostheses and failed annuloplasty rings have recently emerged as treatment options for patients deemed unsuitable for repeat surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the data regarding the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TMVIV and TMVIR procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients (172 patients who underwent TMVIV surgery and 73 patients who underwent TMVIR surgery) were included in the study; 93.5% of patients experienced successful TMVIV or TMVIR implantation. The mortality rates at discharge, 30 days, and 6 months were 5.7%, 8.1%, and 23.4%, respectively. The transapical (TA) access route was used in most procedures (55.2%). The TA and transseptal (TS) access routes resulted in similar outcomes. No significant differences were observed in the short-term outcomes between the patients who developed mitral stenosis versus mitral regurgitation as the mode of failure.

CONCLUSIONS

TMVIV and TMVIR implantation for degenerated mitral bioprostheses and failed annuloplasty rings are safe and effective. Both procedures, via TA or TS access, can result in excellent short-term clinical outcomes in patients with mitral stenosis or regurgitation, but long-term follow-up data are currently lacking to determine the durability of these procedures.

Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve for treatment of severe mitral regurgitation in failed bioprosthesis complicated with cardiogenic shock: Case report and review of the literature

Patients in cardiogenic shock due to severe failure of a mitral bioprosthesis have extremely high risk for repeat standard cardiac surgery. This patient population may benefit the most form the least invasive intervention. We report a successful transseptal mitral valve-in-valve implant performed in a patient in cardiogenic shock due to a flail mitral bioprosthesis requiring bridging intravenous inotropic and intra-aortic balloon pump support.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve Therapy

Valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring transcatheter mitral valve replacement can be used in for the treatment of inoperable patients with failing mitral surgical bioprosthesis or valve repairs. Preprocedural multi-image evaluation by a heart team must include transthoracic echocardiogram, transesophageal echocardiogram, and cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA). CTA is used to determine access site (transapical, transseptal, or transatrial), transcatheter valve size, and landing zone. Though complications can occur (ie, valve embolization, bleeding, or vascular complications), this less invasive procedure has a reported success rate of 70% to 100% and is now increasingly used.

Emergent transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation in a patient with cardiogenic shock secondary to a failed mitral bioprosthesis

Transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) implantation is emerging as a therapeutic option for treatment of failed bioprosthesis in patients that are deemed high-risk or inoperable for redo-valve replacement. It can be carried out in suitable bioprosthetic valves in any position and usually performed as an elective or semi-elective procedure. Here, we report a case of emergent transcatheter VIV implantation in a failed mitral bioprosthesis in a critically ill patient with cardiogenic shock. We conclude that transcatheter VIV implantation may also be an option for critically ill patients with failing bioprosthesis. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.