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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Successful percutaneous paravalvular leak closure followed by transfemoral aortic lotus valve‐in‐valve implantation in a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis

Bioprosthesis degeneration is a relevant clinical issue that is increasingly developing with the higher expectancy of life. Its treatment may be further complicated by the presence of paravalvular leaks, which are usually consequence of tissue friability, annular calcification, and infection. The surgical treatment of such complex conditions may be too risky, so percutaneous techniques in selected centers are becoming an attracting option. We report the case of a 65‐year‐old gentleman with a previous aortic valve replacement (Perimount n.25) who was admitted with worsening heart failure and transoesophageal evidence of severe intraprosthetic regurgitation and a large paravalvular leak. Since he was judged at too high risk for surgery, he was treated by a fully percutaneous approach. First, he had his large paravalvular leak closed by implantation of two plugs from both retrograde and anterograde routes (arterial–venous loop created). After one month, he underwent a “valve‐in‐valve” transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a fully repositionable Lotus 23 mm valve, which was able to restore a completely normal aortic valve function and let to a dramatic improvement of his functional status at 6‐month follow‐up (from NYHA IV to NYHA I), when a transthoracic echocardiogram also confirmed the absence of any aortic regurgitation. This case shows how a tailored step‐by‐step fully percutaneous strategy is safe and feasible in high‐risk patients with both bioprosthesis degeneration and large paravalvular leaks. This novel opportunity would need to be better evaluated in properly addressed long‐term clinical studies. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve/Evolut R© for degenerated small versus bigger bioprostheses

Objectives

We present our single center experience with Medtronic CoreValve and Evolut R regarding procedural outcome and 3 years follow‐up in patients with degenerated bioprostheses.

Methods

From 1645 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI at our institution between February 2009 and December 2016, 37 patients with degenerated bioprosthesis were treated with Medtronic CoreValve/Evolut R. All data concerning baseline characteristic, procedural outcomes and follow‐up were entered into a dedicated database.

Results

Mean age was 83.9 ± 4.4 years and patients showed an average logistic EuroSCORE of 33.2 ± 16.7%. Successful ViV deployment was achieved in all cases, a permanent pacemaker was implanted in 16.2%, no periinterventional stroke and no coronary obstruction occurred. Mortality at 30 days was 2.7%, at 1‐year follow‐up 5.7% and at three years 13.5%. Depending on bioprosthesis size <23 mm versus ≥23 mm echocardiographic mean gradients post implantation were significantly higher in the smaller bioprostheses, 22.8 mmHg ± 9.4 mmHg versus 15.1 ± 7.1, P = 0.013.

Conclusion

ViV‐TAVI with CoreValve/R is demonstrated to be safe and effective in terms of no coronary obstruction and very low mortality up to 3 years despite slightly higher mean transprosthetic gradients especially in very small bioprostheses.

     

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.     

“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.     

First transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation in an apicoaortic conduit

Apicoaortic conduit surgery is an option for treating severe aortic stenosis. The implanted conduit valve may eventually fail and require replacement; this is usually performed by repeat surgery. Treating the conduit valve with a standard transcatheter heart valve is an option that has become feasible in recent years. We describe a case of a failed 23 mm CE bioprosthesis that was successfully treated with a 23 mm Sapien XT valve as a valve‐in‐valve procedure. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Cracking a tricuspid perimount bioprosthesis to optimize a second transcatheter sapien valve‐in‐valve placement

Bioprosthetic valves degenerate over time. Transcatheter valve‐in‐valve procedures have become an attractive alternative to surgery. However, every valve increasingly diminishes the diameter of the valvar orifice. We report a 12‐year‐old female who had a previous transcatheter tricuspid valve‐in‐valve procedure; cracking the ring of a Carpentier Edwards Perimount valve by means of an ultrahigh pressure balloon allowed implantation of a further larger percutaneous valve. The advantage of this novel approach permits enlarging the inner valve diameter and may facilitate future interventions and prolong time to surgery. © 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.     

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.     

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.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon predilatation

Balloon predilatation has been regarded as an essential step before implanting the self‐expandable prosthesis during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Recent evidence showed that without balloon predilatation, an implantation success rate of >95% could be achieved. We report two cases in which balloon predilatation was not performed initially during TAVI but eventually required it to facilitate device crossing and implantation. They illustrated the importance of case selection and alerted us the potential limitation in performing TAVI without balloon predilatation. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.