Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve implantation for failed surgical bioprostheses

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for failed surgical bioprostheses, or “valve‐in‐valve” implantation, is a therapeutic option for high‐risk patients. While coronary occlusion during TAVI for native aortic stenosis has been described, in the setting of valve‐in‐valve implantation the bioprsthetic posts may be protective against this complication. We describe the first two cases of coronary occlusion following valve‐in‐valve therapy, both occurring during treatment of degenerated Mitroflow bioprostheses. Aortic root anatomy, coronary ostial position, and the specifics of the bioprosthetic valve type need to be considered in assessing and preventing this rare complication. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation 10 years after valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failing aortic valve homograft root replacement

Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV‐TAVI) is an established therapy for a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis. TAVI‐in‐TAVI following ViV‐TAVI has not been previously performed. We report a high‐risk patient presenting with severe left ventricular failure secondary to undiagnosed critical aortic stenosis due to degeneration of the implanted transcatheter heart valve more than a decade after initial ViV‐TAVI for a failing stentless aortic valve homograft. Successful TAVI‐in‐TAVI reversed the clinical and echocardiographic changes of decompensated heart failure with no evidence of coronary obstruction.     

Procedural and clinical outcomes of the valve‐in‐valve technique for severe aortic insufficiency after balloon‐expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective : To describe the clinical and procedural outcomes of patients treated with the valve‐in‐valve technique for severe aortic insufficiency (AI) after balloon‐expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background : Severe AI immediately after valve implantation is a notable complication of TAVR. It can be treated with a valve‐in‐valve technique which involves deploying a second valve within the first one to crush the leaflets of the first implant leaving a new functional valve. Methods : We analyzed data on 142 consecutive patients at our institution undergoing TAVR with the Sapien valve between November of 2007 and April of 2011. Etiologies of acute AI, procedural and intermediate term clinical outcomes were reported for those in whom a valve‐in‐valve procedure was necessary. Post‐hoc analysis of these cases with C‐THV imaging (Paieon Medical Ltd.) was performed to elucidate the mechanism for successful AI treatment. Results : A total of 5 of 142 (3.5%) patients were treated with the valve‐in‐valve technique. Etiologies of the aortic valve insufficiency included bioprosthesis malposition (n = 3), valve dysfunction (n = 1), and valve undersizing (n = 1). With placement of the second valve, the first valve dimensions increased to approach the nominal valve size while the second valve size remained less than nominal. Conclusions : The valve‐in‐valve technique is an appropriate bailout measure for patients with acute valvular AI after balloon‐expandable TAVR. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals Inc.     

Carotid artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

We report three patients who had successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) via carotid artery access. None were candidates for thoracotomy (including minimal access incisions) and had no other vascular access sites that would accommodate the transcatheter valve sheath. Antegrade carotid perfusion and retrograde insertion of the delivery sheath maintained cerebral blood flow without sequelae. Carotid access for TAVR is an option for unusual patients without other access. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Influence of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention on mid‐term outcomes in patients with aortic valve stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BackgroundA high frequency of coronary artery disease (CAD) is reported in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, the optimal management of CAD in these patients remains unknown.HypothesisWe hypothesis that AS patients with TAVI complicated by CAD have poor prognosis. His study evaluates the prognoses of patients with CAD and severe AS after TAVI.MethodsWe divided 186 patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI into three groups: those with CAD involving the left main coronary (LM) or proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesion (the CAD[LADp] group), those with CAD not involving the LM or a LAD proximal lesion (the CAD[non‐LADp] group), and those without CAD (Non‐CAD group). Clinical outcomes were compared among the three groups.ResultsThe CAD[LADp] group showed a higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and all‐cause mortality than the other two groups (log‐rank p = .001 and p = .008, respectively). Even after adjustment for STS score and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before TAVI, CAD[LADp] remained associated with MACCE and all‐cause mortality. However, PCI for an LM or LAD proximal lesion pre‐TAVI did not reduce the risk of these outcomes.ConclusionsCAD with an LM or LAD proximal lesion is a strong independent predictor of mid‐term MACCEs and all‐cause mortality in patients with severe AS treated with TAVI. PCI before TAVI did not influence the outcomes.     

Balloon valuloplasty prior to transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation in a degenerated mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis

Transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation is an emerging treatment option for high‐risk patients with failing aortic bioprostheses. The presence of the prosthesis stents is thought to prevent coronary artery obstruction, a known complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the native aortic valve. The Sorin Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) has a particular design in that the pericardial leaflets are mounted outside the valve stent. As a consequence, the pericardial leaflets of this prosthesis may be displaced well away from the stents during the deployment of transcatheter valves. This might explain why both the cases of coronary occlusion following valve‐in‐valve implantation reported to date occurred in patients with a malfunctioning Mitroflow bioprosthesis. We describe a patient with a malfunctioning 25 mm Mitroflow bioprosthesis successfully treated by percutaneous transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation, and discuss the role that balloon aortic valvuloplasty plays in the performance of this delicate procedure. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Simultaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and trans‐septal mitral valve‐in‐ring implantation after partial laceration of an Alfieri stitch

In patients with an Alfieri Stitch transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) may be difficult due to the double orifice configuration of the mitral valve. We report a case of simultaneous and completely percutaneous TAVR and TMVR using LAMPOON‐related techniques prior to TMVR to allow for optimal valve deployment.     

Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement to treat multijet paravalvular regurgitation: A case series and review

Treatment advances for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis including transcatheter and open surgical valve replacement have improved patient survival, length of stay, and speed to recovery. However, paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is occasionally seen and when moderate or greater in severity is associated with an at least 2‐fold increase in 1 year mortality. While several treatment approaches focused on single‐jet PVR have been described in the literature, few reports describe multijet PVR. Multijet PVR can successfully be treated with a variety of catheter‐based options including valve‐in‐valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We present two patients with at least moderate PVR following aortic valve replacement who were successfully treated with ViV TAVR along with a review of literature highlighting our rationale for utilizing each management approach. Multijet PVR can be treated successfully with ViV TAVR, but additional options such as self‐expanding occluder devices and bioprosthetic valve fracture have a role as adjunctive treatments to achieve optimal results. The etiology of multijet PVR can differ between patients, this heterogeneity underscores the paucity of data to guide treatment strategies. Therefore, successful treatment of multijet PVR requires familiarity with available therapeutic options to achieve optimal results and, by extension, decrease patient mortality.     

Reversible thrombotic aortic valve restenosis after valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Thrombotic aortic valve restenosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been extensively reported and the rates of TAVR valve thrombosis are not known. We present three cases of valve‐in‐valve (VIV) restenosis following TAVR with the balloon expandable transcatheter heart valves, presumably due to valve thrombosis that improved with anticoagulation. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

First‐in‐human valve‐in‐valve implantation of a 20 mm balloon expandable transcatheter heart valve

An 86‐year‐old lady with recurrent admissions for heart failure due to a severely regurgitant aortic bioprosthesis (SJM Epic 19 mm) was not a candidate for re‐operation due to age and frailty. Her small ilio‐femoral arteries precluded a transfemoral transcatheter valve‐in‐valve (VIV) approach. The small internal diameter of her bioprosthesis (16 mm) forbids the implantation of the smallest available transapical transcatheter heart valve (THV). We, therefore, decided to perform a first‐in‐human transapical aortic VIV implantation using a 20 mm balloon expandable THV and a transfemoral delivery system. The procedure was successfully performed under general anesthesia, without any contrast dye and under fluoroscopy as well as transesophageal echocardiography guidance. The post‐procedural transvalvular gradient was 15 mm Hg (pre‐procedural 14 mm Hg). At 30‐day follow‐up, the lady was living independently at home without shortness of breath during her daily activities. If redo‐surgery for prosthetic regurgitation is not an option, VIV implantation in very small surgical bioprosthesis is feasible and leads to acceptable hemodynamics and clinical improvement.© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Echocardiographic follow‐up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for high‐risk patients with aortic stenosis has rapidly increased during the past years. Accordingly, more and more patients are referred for a follow‐up echocardiographic study after TAVR. However, the echocardiographic evaluation of patients who underwent TAVR places specific demands on echocardiographers. Furthermore, TAVR may be associated with new types of complications, which are frequently unrecognized or underestimated due to lack of familiarity with the normal and pathological appearance of TAVR. Therefore, this review summarizes the echocardiographic parameters describing the structural and functional status of bioprostheses used in TAVR, procedures taking into account their peculiar hemodynamics. We also describe the strengths and the limitations of echocardiography and of other imaging modalities in detecting long‐term complications of TAVR (eg, infective endocarditis, thrombosis). The aim of this review was to serve as a guide for a structured echocardiographic follow‐up of TAVR patients, as well as for the echocardiographic diagnosis of the procedure‐associated complications.     

The impact of mitral stenosis on outcomes of aortic valve stenosis patient undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

The concomitant presence of mitral stenosis (MS) in the setting of symptomatic aortic stenosis represent a clinical challenge. Little is known regarding the outcome of mitral stenosis (MS) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Therefore, we sought to study the outcome of MS patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Method

Using weighted data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between 2011 and 2014, we identified patients who were diagnosed with MS. Patients who had undergone TAVR as a primary procedure were identified and compared to patients who had SAVR. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed for the outcomes of in‐hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), blood transfusion, postprocedural hemorrhage, vascular, cardiac and respiratory complications, permanent pacemaker placement (PPM), postprocedural stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and discharge to an outside facility.

Results

A total of 4524 patients were diagnosed with MS, of which 552 (12.2%) had TAVR and 3972 (87.8%) had SAVR. TAVR patients were older (79.9 vs 70.0) with more females (67.4% vs 60.0%) and African American patients (7.7% vs 7.1%) (P < 0.001). In addition, the TAVR group had more comorbidities compared to SAVR in term of coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic lung disease, hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (P < 0.001 for all). Using Multivariate logistic regression, and after adjusting for potential risk factors, TAVR patients had lower in‐hospital mortality (7.9% vs 8.1% adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 0.615; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.392–0.964, P = 0.034), shorter LOS. Also, TAVR patients had lower rates of cardiac and respiratory complications, PPM, AKI, and discharge to an outside facility compared with the SAVR group.

Conclusion

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant mitral stenosis, TAVR is a safe and attractive option for patients undergoing AVR with less complications compared with SAVR.

     

Pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to surgical aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a standard treatment indicated for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of pacemaker dependency after permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and the risk of mortality at a tertiary center in Korea.In this retrospective study conducted at a single tertiary center, clinical outcomes related to pacemaker dependency were evaluated for patients implanted with pacemakers after TAVR from January 2012 to November 2018 and post-SAVR from January 2005 to May 2015. Investigators reviewed patients’ electrocardiograms and baseline rhythms as well as conduction abnormalities. Pacemaker dependency was defined as a ventricular pacing rate > 90% with an intrinsic rate of <40 bpm during interrogation.Of 511 patients who underwent TAVR for severe AS, 37(7.3%) underwent PPI after a median duration of 6 (3–7) days, whereas pacemakers were implanted after a median interval of 13 (8–28) days post-SAVR in 10 of 663 patients (P < .001). Pacemaker dependency was observed in 36 (97.3%) patients during 7 days immediately post-TAVR and in 25 (64.9%) patients between 8 and 180 days post-TAVR. Pacemaker dependency occurred after 180 days in 17 (50%) patients with TAVR and in 4 (44.4%) patients with SAVR. Twelve (41.4%) patients were pacemaker-dependent after 365 days post-TAVR.Pacemaker dependency did not differ at 6 months after TAVR vs SAVR. In patients undergoing post-TAVR PPI, 58.6% were not pacemaker-dependent at 1 year after the TAVR procedure.     

Series of transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantations in high‐risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses in aortic and mitral position

Objectives: We report our experience with transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantations in patients with degenerated bioprostheses in aortic and mitral position. Background: Xenograft degeneration is a potential problem after biological valve replacement. Reoperation remains the gold standard with very good short‐ and long‐term results. In selected patients not suitable for surgery however, interventional techniques for valve implantation and repair may be valuable alternative treatment options with regard to the good results of transcatheter valve implantation for native aortic valve stenosis. Methods: Five patients presented with significant xenograft degeneration 15.4 ± 5.2 years after aortic (n = 4) and mitral (n = 1) valve replacement. Mean patient age was 82.0 ± 6.5 years and predicted operative mortality was 55.8% ± 18.9% (logistic EuroSCORE). Transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation was performed successfully through a transapical access in all patients. A 23‐mm Edwards Sapien valve was deployed into the degenerated valve prosthesis. Results: Mean transvalvular gradients were reduced from 31.2 ± 17.4 to 19.0 ± 12.4 mm Hg in aortic and from 9 to 3 mm Hg in mitral position without significant regurgitation in any of these patients. Two patients died within 30 days due to low cardiac output and acute hemorrhage, respectively, one of whom presented with a EuroSCORE of 88.9%. Conclusions: With growing need for reoperative valve replacement in elderly patients with disproportional operative risks, transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation in aortic and mitral position offers an alternative treatment option. Although valve function after transcatheter implantation was good in all patients, two high risk patients died in the postoperative period due to their significant comorbidities, underscoring the bail‐out character of this procedure. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.