Direct access valve‐in‐valve implantation for management of complex valvulopathy

The management of bioprosthetic structural valve degeneration requires complex surgical or transcatheter re‐intervention for which many high‐risk patients are not considered candidates. Here, we describe a technique for a direct surgical access valve‐in‐valve implantation in patients with complex bioprosthetic valvulopathy for whom standard surgical valve replacement and percutaneous interventions were high‐risk and contraindicated, respectively.     

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 report of a simultaneous transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve and aortic valve replacement in a left ventricular assist device patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Although not intended for treatment of primary aortic insufficiency, several transcatheter aortic valve prostheses have been used to treat patients with severe aortic insufficiency (AI), including patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), in whom significant AI is not uncommon. Similarly, transcatheter valve replacements have been used for valve‐in‐valve treatment, in the pulmonary, aortic, and mitral positions, either via a retrograde femoral approach or antegrade transseptal approach (mitral valve‐in‐valve). In this case report, we report an LVAD patient with severe aortic insufficiency and severe bioprosthetic mitral prosthetic stenosis, in whom we successfully performed transfemoral aortic valve replacement and transfemoral mitral valve‐in‐valve replacement via a transseptal approach. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Transapical tricuspid valve‐in‐ring implantation: An alternative approach to a challenging clinical scenario

We report on a transapical tricuspid valve‐in‐ring implantation performed via right ventricular apex using the Sapien‐XT‐prosthesis. A 57‐year‐old woman with recurrent episodes of right heart failure and three previous sternotomies, including tricuspid valve repair with a 32 mm Carpentier–Edwards–Classic annuloplasty ring was admitted due to recurrent severe tricuspid regurgitation. Given the excessive surgical risk, a 29 mm Sapien‐XT‐prosthesis was selected for valve‐in‐ring implantation. Transapical valve‐in‐ring implantation procedure was uneventful. Predischarge echocardiography showed only trace paravalvular tricuspid regurgitation in the septal region. Transapical approach via right ventricular apex is a viable alternative for tricuspid valve‐in‐ring implantation in selected high‐risk patients. © 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.     

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.     

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.     

Emergent transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve implantation in a patient with cardiogenic shock secondary to a failed mitral bioprosthesis

Transcatheter valve‐in‐valve (VIV) implantation is emerging as a therapeutic option for treatment of failed bioprosthesis in patients that are deemed high‐risk or inoperable for redo‐valve replacement. It can be carried out in suitable bioprosthetic valves in any position and usually performed as an elective or semi‐elective procedure. Here, we report a case of emergent transcatheter VIV implantation in a failed mitral bioprosthesis in a critically ill patient with cardiogenic shock. We conclude that transcatheter VIV implantation may also be an option for critically ill patients with failing bioprosthesis. © 2015 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.     

Simultaneous transcatheter pulmonary and tricuspid valve‐in‐valve implantation for the treatment of failing pulmonary and tricuspid bioprostheses

We report a case of a patient with a history of bioprosthetic pulmonary and tricuspid valve replacement who developed significant stenosis and regurgitation of the bioprosthetic valves. Due to multiple comorbidities, he was deemed high risk for redo‐valve replacement surgery. He subsequently underwent percutaneous transcatheter pulmonary and tricuspid valve‐in‐valve procedure at the same setting. This is the first of such that is reported in the literature. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

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.     

Transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve implantation in a pediatric patient

An 11‐year‐old girl, with 25 mm mosaic tissue valve presented with clinical and echocardiographic appearance of stenotic mitral valve prosthesis. Her condition was treated via a transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation using a 23 mm Edwards Sapien 3, with satisfactory outcome.     

Transseptal strategy in retrograde transcatheter valve‐in‐valve implantation for failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis

We report a challenging case of transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve implantation in an elderly patient with failed surgical bioprosthesis. The transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrated a severe stenosis with a peak gradient of 142 mm Hg. The patient was a high‐risk candidate for reoperative valve replacement; therefore, transfemoral implantation of a CoreValve (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN) was decided. During the procedure, we were unable to introduce the delivery catheter system across the bioprosthesis due to its poor alignment with the aortic annulus and the severity of the stenosis. With strategies involving transseptal puncture and externalization of a guidewire in an antegrade manner, the CoreValve was successfully positioned and deployed. This case illustrated the utility of transseptal strategies in challenging retrograde transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve implantation. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Fracturing a dysfunctional Edwards Perimount bioprosthetic valve to facilitate percutaneous valve‐in‐valve placement of SAPIEN 3 valve with modified delivery system

Pulmonary valve replacement via surgical implantation of a bioprosthetic valve (BPV) is a well‐established treatment for patients with dysfunctional RV outflow tracts. BPVs are prone to structural deterioration, and will eventually require replacement. Recently, percutaneous valve‐in‐valve (VIV) placement of transcatheter valves has established itself as a safe and effective alternative to surgical revision. Unfortunately, VIV therapy is inherently limited by the inner diameter of the BPV, which restricts the number of eligible patients. Other centers have reported on the feasibility of cracking certain BPVs with ultra high‐pressure balloons in bench testing. We now report cracking an Edwards Perimount BPV in the pulmonary position to facilitate VIV placement of an Edwards SAPIEN 3. The ability to crack the Perimount valve allowed placement of a larger valve than previously considered and minimized the final valve gradient. In an effort to avoid the morbidity and mortality of surgical pulmonary valve replacement, this new strategy will expand the number of patients eligible for percutaneous VIV therapy.     

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.     

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.