Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses—valve‐in‐valve technique

Background: The management of patients with degeneration of surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement remains a challenge because of the higher risk of re‐do aortic valve replacement. We present a case series of five patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: From December 2009 to May 2010, five patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses (aortic valve area < 1 cm² or severe aortic regurgitation), an excessive operative risk (EuroSCORE ≥ 30%), symptoms of heart failure (NYHA ≥ III) and an internal diameter of bioprosthetic aortic valve 20.5 ± 0.5 mm were included. Procedures were performed without hemodynamic support using femoral arteries. Balloon valvuloplasty with a 20‐mm balloon under rapid pacing was carried out before valve implantation. The 26‐mm CoreValve prosthesis, 18‐F‐generation (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) was inserted retrograde under fluoroscopic guidance. Invasive and echocardiographic measurements were done immediately before and after TAVI. Clinical followup and echocardiography were performed after procedure (mean followup 72 days ± 60, range: 176–30 days). Results: In all patients TAVI was successful with immediate decrease of transaortic peak‐to‐peak pressure (P = 0.002). Mild aortic regurgitation occurred in two patients and one patient received a new permanent pacemaker. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events did not arise. NYHA functional class improved in all patients and left ventricular ejection fraction increased (P = 0.019). Conclusion: Our experiences with the valve‐in‐valve technique using the CoreValve prosthesis suggest that transfemoral TAVI is feasible in high risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation within a previous bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

This report documents the first reported case of transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the CoreValve ReValving system (Medtronic CoreValve System, Luxembourg), within a previous bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. TAVI has become a recognized percutaneous treatment for patients with severe native or bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis. However, as the number of patients screened for TAVI increases, a number of patients are found with absolutely no option for peripheral arterial access, either from the femoral or subclavian routes. Transaortic CoreValve placement offers an alternate minimally invasive hybrid surgical/interventional technique when peripheral access is not possible. A CoreValve prosthesis was implanted via the transaortic route in an 81‐year‐old woman with severe bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis (21 mm Mitroflow pericardial valve, peak instantaneous gradient of 99 mmHg, effective valve orifice area (EOA) of 0.3 cm², as ilio‐femoral and left subclavian angiography revealed small calibre vessels (<6 mm). Access was achieved via a mini thoracotomy via the left anterior second intercostal space. The procedure went without complication. Post procedure the patient was transferred directly to the Cardiac Care Unit for recuperation. Post procedure echocardiography showed that the TAVI was well positioned with no para‐valvular leak and a reduction in peak instantaneous gradient to 30 mmHg and an increase in EOA to 1.5 cm². She was discharged on the third post‐procedural day in sinus rhythm with a narrow QRS complex. CoreValve implantation within previous surgical bioprosthesis is now an established treatment. The transaortic approach to transcatheter implantation is a promising recent development, when due to anatomical reasons, transfemoral or subclavian TAVI is not feasible. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Trans‐apical aortic valve implantation complicated by left main occlusion

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a highly effective procedure for selected patients who are at high risk for aortic valve replacement; however, the incidence of severe complications is still relevant. Coronary occlusion during TAVI is a life‐threatening complication that requires immediate diagnosis and treatment. We report the case of an 87‐years‐old woman affected by severe aortic stenosis, symptomatic for refractory heart failure, who underwent urgent balloon aortic valvuloplasty and subsequent elective transapical aortic valve implantation. Valve deployment was complicated by cardiac arrest and hemodynamic collapse, and left main coronary artery occlusion was recognized and successfully recovered by balloon angioplasty and stent implantation. Patient is alive and well 6 months after procedure. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Fracture of small Mitroflow® aortic bioprosthesis following valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement with ACURATE neo valve—From bench testing to clinical practice

Valve‐in‐valve (ViV) transcatheter procedures have emerged as a feasible, less‐invasive treatment option for bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration. However, in the presence of a small bioprosthesis, a significant residual gradient after ViV procedures often occurs and has been associated with poorer clinical outcomes. We report the use of the self‐expandable supra‐annular ACURATE neo? valve to treat degenerated Mitroflow (Sorin) aortic bioprosthesis with severe residual elevated gradients followed by valve fracture with a postdilation using a noncompliant balloon leading to significant reduction in residual gradients. In conclusion, the use of ACURATE neo? valve followed by the controlled fracture of the surgical bioprosthesis frame with a noncompliant balloon is a safe and effective approach for patients with Mitroflow® failing valves and residual elevated gradient after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.     

First‐in‐man transcatheter aortic valve implantation of a 20‐mm edwards SAPIEN XT valve: One step forward for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus

We present the case of an 85‐year‐old woman diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis, porcelain aorta, and a small aortic annulus (17.3 mm), who underwent successful transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with a 20‐mm Edwards SAPIEN XT valve using the NovaFlex+ delivery system. At 1‐month follow‐up the patient was in NYHA functional class I, and Doppler echocardiography showed a mean residual gradient of 15 mm Hg and trivial paravalvular aortic regurgitation. This case, which shows for the first time the feasibility of TAVI with a 20‐mm valve, opens a new avenue for the challenging treatment of patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Simultaneous transapical aortic and mitral valve‐in‐valve implantation for double prostheses dysfunction: Case report and technical insights

Transcatheter “Valve‐in‐Valve” implantation (ViV) has shown promising results in high‐risk patients suffering from structural valve deterioration (SVD) of a previously implanted heart valve bioprosthesis. We present a case of a 68‐year‐old woman with a history of three previous cardiac operations on the aortic and mitral valve. At the time of admission she was severely symptomatic due to a simultaneous SVD of a 23 mm aortic and of a 29 mm mitral St. Jude Biocor bioprosthesis. Because of the history of several cardiac operations and to her comorbidities, the patient was considered with an extremely high surgical risk profile and was therefore scheduled for double concomitant mitral and aortic ViV. Through a trans‐apical approach, the patient underwent 23 and 29 mm Edwards Sapien XT implantation in the aortic and mitral bioprosthesis, respectively. The procedure was uneventful as well as the following hospital stay. At 6‐months follow‐up the patient is in NYHA class I. Echocardiography shows that the aortic bioprosthesis has no leak and the mean gradient is 20 mm Hg while the mitral valve has mild leak and maximum and mean gradients are 21 and 10 mm Hg, respectively. The three main technical aspects that should be carefully considered in double concomitant ViV are: sequence of valve deployment (whether to implant the mitral or the aortic valve first), choice of access and valve sizing. In conclusion, double simultaneous trans‐apical mitral and aortic ViV is technically feasible. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Delayed aortic dissection and valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

We report a case of a 78‐year‐old female who presented with type A aortic dissection 22 months following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In addition, preoperative echocardiogram showed high gradients across the aortic prosthesis which was found to be thrombosed. At surgery, the intimal tear appeared to be non‐acute and anatomically related to the rim of the valve cage. The thrombosed valve was not replaced and the patient received anticoagulation therapy following surgery with significant improvement in valve gradients.     

Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV‐TAVI) versus redo—Surgical aortic valve replacement (redo‐SAVR): A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background

Bioprosthetic (BP) valves have been increasingly used for aortic valve replacement over the last decade. Due to their limited durability, patients presenting with failed BP valves are rising. Valve in Valve ? Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (ViV‐TAVI) emerged as an alternative to the gold standard redo‐Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (redo‐SAVR). However, the utility of ViV‐TAVI is poorly understood.

Methods

A systematic electronic search of the scientific literature was done in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov . Only studies which compared the safety and efficacy of ViV‐TAVI and redo‐SAVR head to head in failed BP valves were included.

Results

Six observational studies were eligible and included 594 patients, of whom 255 underwent ViV‐ TAVI and 339 underwent redo‐SAVR. There was no significant difference between ViV‐TAVI and redo‐ SAVR for procedural, 30 day and 1 year mortality rates. ViV‐TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (OR: 0.43, CI: 0.21‐0.89; P = 0.02) and a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR: 5.45, CI: 0.94‐31.58; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference for stroke, major bleeding, vascular complications and postprocedural aortic valvular gradients more than 20 mm‐hg.

Conclusion

Our results reiterate the safety and feasibility of ViV‐TAVI for failed aortic BP valves in patients deemed to be at high risk for surgery. VIV‐TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation with a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak.

     

Prognostic benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with medical therapy in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis

Objectives : To compare survival in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation against those managed medically. Background : Without surgical correction, survival of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is poor. It is unknown whether patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have a better prognosis than similar patients who are treated with medical management. Methods : Survival rates were compared in consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who either underwent TAVI or continued on medical management following multidisciplinary team assessment. All patients had been turned down, or considered at unacceptably high risk, for conventional aortic valve surgery. Patients were reviewed in clinic or by telephone six monthly. Mortality data was obtained from the United Kingdom Office of National Statistics. Results : The study group included 85 patients aged 81 ± 7 years (range 62–94), of whom 48 were male. Thirty eight patients underwent TAVI while 47 patients were deemed unsuitable based on echocardiographic, angiographic, or clinical criteria and remained on medical therapy. The calculated EuroSCORE for the TAVI group was 11 ± 2 and for the medical group 9 ± 2 (P < 0.001). TAVI‐related procedural mortality was 2.6%, and 30‐day mortality was 5.2%. Among the medically‐treated patients, 14 (30%) underwent palliative balloon aortic valvuloplasty, with a trend toward improved survival (P = 0.06). During overall follow‐up of 215 ± 115 days there were a total of 18 deaths; TAVI N = 5 (13%); Medical N = 13 (28%) (P = 0.04). Conclusions : Patients with severe aortic valve disease who are not suitable for surgical aortic valve replacement have an improved prognosis if treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation rather than continuing on medical management alone. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

超声心动图在主动脉瓣狭窄经导管主动脉瓣植入术中的应用价值

目的探讨超声心动图在主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管主动脉瓣植入术中的作用。方法3例重度主动脉瓣瓣膜狭窄患者接受经导管主动脉瓣人工瓣膜植入术。使用PhilipS iE33型彩色多普勒超声诊断仪,配备经胸探头S5—1和经食道探头S7—2,X7—2t。超声观察内容包括明确主动脉瓣膜病变范围和程度,测量主动脉瓣环前后径,人工瓣膜植入术后瓣膜功能等。结果3例患者经导管主动脉瓣植入术均取得了成功,人工瓣膜位置稳定,常规超声心动图3例患者术前经胸超声心动图与术中经食管超声心动图诊断相符,跨瓣压差较术前明显下降,主动脉瓣瓣上流速明显下降,瓣周漏瞬时反流量平均约1．2mL。结论经导管主动脉瓣人工瓣膜植入术在治疗严重主动脉瓣瓣膜狭窄中方法可行,效果良好;超声心动图在这项工作中具有重要的辅助作用。     

Valve‐in‐valve implantation with a 23‐mm balloon‐expandable transcatheter heart valve for the treatment of a 19‐mm stentless bioprosthesis severe aortic regurgitation using a strategy of “extreme” underfilling

We report a case of valve‐in‐valve (ViV) implantation by transfemoral approach with a 23‐mm balloon‐expandable prosthesis inside a stentless 19‐mm acutely degenerated bioprosthesis, using a strategy of “extreme” underfilling. A 74‐year‐old patient presented to our institution in cardiogenic shock. An initial transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) showed severe central aortic regurgitation (AR) due to a torn leaflet. She was deemed inoperable and considered for urgent transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Given the fairly small true internal diameter, a strategy of 3‐cc underfilling of a 23‐mm transcatheter heart valve (THV) was planned. However, the final implantation was performed with 5‐cc underfilling due to the incapacity to deliver the entire amount of fluid contained in the inflation syringe. TEE guidance confirmed the successful positioning and deployment of the prosthesis, with no AR and a mean gradient of 25 mm Hg. While implantation of a smaller prosthesis (20 mm) was debated during the Heart Team discussion, the risk of valve embolization due to inadequate anchoring inside the stentless prosthesis led to the selection of a 23‐mm THV. At 6‐month follow‐up, the patient was in NYHA class I, with no AR and a mean gradient of 28 mm Hg. We report for the first time the use of in vivo THV with 5‐cc underfilling with no acute or short‐term structural failure, and the first ViV implantation by transfemoral approach with a 23‐mm balloon‐expandable prosthesis inside a stentless 19‐mm bioprosthesis. The current report presents the challenges related to ViV implantation inside a small stentless bioprosthesis and offers practical ways to overcome them. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Papillary muscle rupture after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Catheter-induced mitral regurgitation (MR) caused by mitral papillary muscle rupture can be a fatal complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We report a case involving an 89-year-old man who presented with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In addition, preoperative echocardiography showed accessory mitral valve tissue. Although moderate MR developed immediately after TAVI, severe MR caused by anterolateral papillary muscle rupture occurred 3 months after TAVI. As only a few case series have been published, our case report adds to the evidence base for this treatment strategy.     

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 in degenerative sutureless perceval aortic bioprosthesis

Sutureless aortic bioprostheses (SAB) are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross‐clamp time. Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV‐A) is shown to be effective and safe in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetics, yet its' use in SAB failure is infrequent. We present a case of balloon‐expandable VIV‐A in an 80‐year‐old woman who suffered severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation in a failed Perceval S 21‐mm valve. Computed tomography scan demonstrated a deformed valve. Our heart team favored a percutaneous VIV‐A over reoperation due to the patients' high surgical risk. An Edwards‐Sapien XT 23 mm was successfully deployed with excellent results. The patient remained asymptomatic following 6 months. As other bioprosthesis, some sutureless valves are condemned to structural valve degeneration. Because VIV‐A is being established for managing degenerative bioprosthesis in high risk patients, it is cardinal to identify its role in novel degenerative sutureless valves. SAB were introduced to the clinical market only 5–7 years ago. The absence of sutures may theoretically impose risk for valve instability when adding a transcatheter sutureless valve inside the first one. Our successful experience was very reassuring. We report its feasibility because we believe it should provide support for further investigation on VIV‐A within novel SAV. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Outcomes of patients with low‐pressure aortic gradient undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background: The risk/benefit balance of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with low‐gradient aortic stenosis (LGAS) remains to be well defined. Aim of the study was to investigate the impact of LGAS in patients undergoing TAVI. Methods: Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for articles reporting outcome of patients with LGAS undergoing TAVI. The primary endpoint was 12‐months all‐cause mortality and the secondary endpoint was 30‐day all‐cause mortality. Using event‐rates as dependent variable, a meta‐regression was performed to test for interaction between baseline clinical features (age, gender, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and type of implanted valve) and transaortic gradient for the primary endpoint. Results: Eight studies with a total of 12,589 patients were included. Almost one‐third of the patients presented with LGAS (27.3%: 24.4–29.2). Median LVEF was 48% in patients with LGAS and 56% in patients with high‐gradient AS. Patients with LGAS were more likely to have diabetes mellitus, previous coronary artery disease, higher mean Logistic EuroSCORE, and lower EF. At 12 (12–16.6) months, low transaortic gradient emerged as independently associated with all‐cause death, both if evaluated as a dichotomous and continuous value (respectively OR 1.17; 1.11–1.23 and OR 1.02; 1–1.04, all CI 95%). Clinical variables, including EF did not affect this result. Conclusions: In a population of TAVI patients, LGAS appears to be independently related to dismal prognosis. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

“Valve‐in‐valve” for the treatment of paravalvular leaks following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is commonly associated with some degree of aortic regurgitation (AR) secondary to the presence of paravalvular leaks. We present the case of an 86‐year‐old woman diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI with a 23‐mm Edwards‐SAPIEN valve. The procedure complicated with a severe paravalvular leak following TAVI that was unresponsive to balloon postdilation. This complication was successfully managed with the implantation of a second valve of the same diameter within the first one (“valve‐in‐valve”) resulting in trivial residual AR and the absence of significant transvalvular gradient at the end of the procedure. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation through a diseased left common carotid artery: Combined approach with endarterectomy and left carotid‐subclavian bypass

We report a case of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the self‐expanding Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MI) through a diseased left common carotid (LCC) artery. This 81‐year‐old male patient presented with heart failure due to a severe degenerative aortic valve stenosis. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia as well as peripheral and coronary artery disease, resulting in a logistic EuroScore II of 25.9%. Consequently, he was rejected to undergo surgery and a transcatheter approach was planned. Due to severe peripheral vascular disease with iliofemoral lesions, significant calcifications and unfavourable angulations of the innominate artery as well as prior bypass surgery precluding a direct aortic and subclavian approach, none of the established access sites were suitable. Therefore, we considered a left carotid access, which had to be combined with a surgical endarterectomy for treatment of a significant common carotid bifurcation stenosis and left subclavian‐LCC permanent tunnel bypass graft. The procedure was successful without cardiac, cerebrovascular, or access complications. This case illustrates a true heart team approach, establishing a unique access for TAVI for patients without regular access options. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Infective endocarditis as a mid‐term complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Few cases of infective endocarditis (IE) as a complication of percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been reported. Here, we present a case of IE caused by Streptococcus viridans that occurred 6 months after TAVI with the corevalve revalving system. The patient was successfully treated with antibiotics and was asymptomatic during the 2 years after IE. We also present a review of the literature, including 15 published cases of IE after TAVI. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.