Bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflet disruption with high energy electrocautery to prevent coronary artery obstruction during valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is well‐established for the treatment of bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis (AS) in high surgical risk patients. Coronary artery obstruction from displacement of the bioprosthetic valve leaflets during valve‐in‐valve (VIV) TAVR is a rare, but potentially fatal, complication. Recently, the bioprosthetic aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) procedure was developed as a method for disrupting bioprosthetic leaflets in patients undergoing VIV TAVR at high risk for coronary obstruction. This case describes a successful VIV TAVR utilizing a simplified concept of the BASILICA technique in a patient where the full procedure could not be completed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

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.     

Contemporary transcatheter aortic valve replacement with third‐generation balloon‐expandable versus self‐expanding devices

Objectives

To evaluate balloon‐expandable and self‐expanding third‐generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices according to patient selection criteria and outcomes.

Background

Two competing third‐generation TAVR technologies are currently commercially available in the US. There are no published head‐to‐head comparisons of the relative performance of these two devices.

Methods

257 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with a third‐generation balloon‐expandable (Edwards Sapien 3) or self‐expanding device (Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R) at a single US medical center were included. Choice of TAVR device was at the discretion of the multidisciplinary Heart Team. Baseline clinical characteristics, echocardiographic and CT imaging, procedural and 30‐day outcomes were prospectively collected.

Results

74 patients received a self‐expanding valve (SEV) and 183 received a balloon‐expandable valve (BEV). Patients selected for SEV were more frequently women, with lower body surface area and smaller calcified iliofemoral arteries. Three SEV patients required implantation of a second valve to successfully treat paravalvular leak. Only one BEV patient had moderate paravalvular regurgitation. There was no difference in the rate of stroke, major vascular complication or bleeding. Permanent pacemaker implantation rate was significantly higher with SEV (12.7% vs 4.7%, P = 0.49) and hospital length of stay was longer (8.3% vs 6.5%, P = 0.043), but 30‐day mortality was comparable (1.4% vs 1.6%, P = 1.00).

Conclusions

Short‐term outcomes were equivalent between the two technologies. Clinically significant paravalvular regurgitation was rare. SEV were more frequently selected in women and patients with challenging transfemoral access, but were associated with higher permanent pacemaker implantation rate and longer hospital length of stay.