Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR.

METHODS

Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR.

RESULTS

There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Predicted vs Observed Valve to Coronary Distance in Valve-in-Valve TAVR: A Computed Tomography Study

BACKGROUND

Preprocedural computed tomography (CT) workup with assessment of virtual transcatheter heart valve-to-coronary ostia (VTC) distance and transcatheter heart valve-to-sinus (VTS) distances is recommended to assess the risk of coronary obstruction following valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to investigate the agreement of predicted VTC and VTS distances and observed post-TAVR anatomy on CT and their relationship with transcatheter heart valve (THV) expansion and deployment conditions.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients who underwent a balloon-expandable ViV procedure were included in this study. The expansion of the THV stent frame was evaluated at 4 levels: THV inflow, surgical heart valve (SHV) sewing ring, SHV outflow, and THV outflow. Assessment of the VTC/VTS distances was performed on the pre-TAVR CT, and THV-to-coronary ostia and THV-to-sinus distances were assessed on the post-TAVR CT.

RESULTS

Following the ViV procedure, the THV stent frame flared toward the outflow but was generally underexpanded at all levels, particularly at the SHV sewing ring level. Postdilatation impacted the extent of THV expansion, resulting in greater expansion than nominal balloon filling at all 4 THV levels (P < 0.001). Observed THV-to-coronary ostia distances were systematically larger than predicted by the VTC distance (mean difference 1.25 ±1.28 mm) in patients with nominal balloon filling but systematically smaller in case of postdilatation (mean difference -0.45 ± 0.52 mm). A similar relationship was observed between VTS and THV-to-sinus distance measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

With nominal balloon filling, VTC and VTS distances underestimate postprocedural distances due to THV frame underexpansion. However, postdilatation may lead to distances smaller than predicted due to THV overexpansion at the outflow level.

Coronary Obstruction during Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Pre-Procedural Risk Evaluation, Intra-Procedural Monitoring, and Follow-Up

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is emerging as an effective treatment for patients with symptomatically failing bioprosthetic valves and a high prohibitive surgical risk; a longer life expectancy has led to a higher demand for these valve reinterventions due to the increased possibilities of outliving the bioprosthetic valve's durability. Coronary obstruction is the most feared complication of valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR; it is a rare but life-threatening complication and occurs most frequently at the left coronary artery ostium. Accurate pre-procedural planning, mainly based on cardiac computed tomography, is crucial to determining the feasibility of a ViV TAVR and to assessing the anticipated risk of a coronary obstruction and the eventual need for coronary protection measures. Intraprocedurally, the aortic root and a selective coronary angiography are useful for evaluating the anatomic relationship between the aortic valve and coronary ostia; transesophageal echocardiographic real-time monitoring of the coronary flow with a color Doppler and pulsed-wave Doppler is a valuable tool that allows for a determination of real-time coronary patency and the detection of asymptomatic coronary obstructions. Because of the risk of developing a delayed coronary obstruction, the close postprocedural monitoring of patients at a high risk of developing coronary obstructions is advisable. CT simulations of ViV TAVR, 3D printing models, and fusion imaging represent the future directions that may help provide a personalized lifetime strategy and tailored approach for each patient, potentially minimizing complications and improving outcomes.

Is timing everything? Bioprosthetic valve fracture in valve-in-valve TAVR

We present a challenging case of early bioprosthetic valve degeneration following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve fracture.

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.