“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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The valve‐in‐valve technique: Transcatheter treatment of aortic bioprothesis malposition

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement is an emerging alternative to palliative medical therapy for nonsurgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. The impossibility of repositioning of the current transcatheter prosthesis in case of suboptimal placement is the main limit of these devices. Here, we report on a case of an 84‐year‐old woman successfully treated with implantation of two 18‐Fr CoreValve® prosthesis (CoreValve®, Irvine, California), because of the suboptimal deployment of the first one, analyzing the procedural technique and the immediate and short‐term clinical and hemodynamic results. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Rescue “valve in valve” implantation after late onset corevalve cusp rupture leading to acute massive aortic insufficiency

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a feasible and effective alternative to aortic valve replacement in patients at high surgical risk, and is associated with a lower risk of death at 1 year follow‐up when compared with standard therapy. In a recent large study, enrolling 663 high risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis TAVI with the use of CoreValve system has been associated with early and sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefits, with a cumulative mortality of 15.0% at 1 year follow‐up. This study has shown that paravalvular aortic regurgitation after successful TAVI is a frequent finding, being of mild entity in the vast majority of cases, whereas valvular regurgitation is almost entirely absent or mild. Of note, no cases of structural valve deterioration were reported. We report a case of a successful implantation of a CoreValve that complicated with late onset massive intravalvular aortic regurgitation, due to CoreValve cusp rupture, leading to low output state with acute pulmonary edema, which was successfully treated with “valve in valve” implantation. © 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.     

The first case of “locked‐in leaflet” after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with bicuspid aortic stenosis

This case report is about an 85‐year‐old woman with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS). Although preoperative multimodality imaging showed challenging anatomical aspects, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was selected to be performed as a less invasive alternative treatment approach, owing to her comorbidity. Postoperative transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector‐row computed tomography revealed the presence of “locked‐in leaflet” caused by stent distortion due to pinching by calcified native leaflets, with nodular calcification preventing the full expansion of the valve, which resulted in moderate perivalvular leakage. This is the first reported case of bicuspid AS treated with TAVR that eventually resulted in “locked‐in leaflet.”     

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.     

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.     

A word of caution using self‐expanding transcatheter aortic valve‐frame infolding

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become a mainstay alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high and intermediate surgical risk. Two commercially approved valves are available in the United States: balloon‐expandable and self‐expanding. We report here a rare complication of a self‐expanding Evolut PRO (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) valve failing to expand due to nitinol frame infolding. This results in a malopposed valve with a severe paravalvular leak, even though treated successfully with balloon valvuloplasty. It is important to recognize the characteristic angiographic signature of this complication—the “straight line” sign—and how to avoid this potentially serious complication by balloon valvuloplasty or by recapture and deployment of a new valve.