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.     

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.     

Successful percutaneous transvenous antegrade mitral valve‐in‐valve implantation

We report a case of transcatheter valve‐in‐valve therapy performed on an 85‐year‐old man with severe mitral bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. He was a high risk candidate for conventional surgery and he underwent placement of the Melody transcatheter heart valve into the mitral bioprosthesis via the right femoral vein.© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Mitral valve‐in‐valve with the lotus mechanically expanding platform

• Disadvantages of existing balloon expandable or self‐expanding transcatheter platforms for mitral valve‐in‐valve include the potential for malposition during deployment and for LV outflow tract obstruction
• Controlled mechanical valve expansion, the option to reposition, and stable hemodynamics throughout the procedure make the LOTUS valve an attractive option for mitral valve‐in‐valve
• Correct sizing remains a critical aspect of all trancatheter valve implant procedures, including valve‐in‐valve implants

     

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.     

Hybrid trans‐apical atrioventricular valve‐in‐valve implantation in Fontan circulation

Trans‐apical approach has been proved successful in failing surgical bio‐prosthesis in both mitral and aortic position in adult patients. Recently, valve‐in‐valve treatments have been applied even in patients with complex congenital heart disease. Here, we report the case of a 32 years old lady with left atrial isomerism, complete AV septal defect, interrupted inferior vena cava with azygos continuation who underwent Kawashima procedure with atrial Fontan. Severe systemic atrioventricular valve regurgitation necessitated a 33 mm Perimount valve implantation and conversion to lateral tunnel Fontan. After only 4 years there was severe valve stenosis and the patient underwent successful trans‐apical transcatheter implantation of a 29 mm Sapien valve.     

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.     

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.     

Perceval sutureless valve migration treated by valve‐in‐valve with a CoreValve Evolut Pro

In the last years, the use of sutureless devices in frail patients with severe aortic stenosis has increased thanks to their “easier and faster” technique of implantation in comparison to conventional surgery. Results from metanalysis show comparable outcomes in comparison to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in terms of mortality, stroke incidence, and rate of pace‐maker implantation. The incidence of para‐valvular leak (PVL) is even lower for sutureless devices than for TAVR. The few cases described are generally due to incomplete decalcification or incorrect valve sizing and consequent stent distortion. To our knowledge this is the first case describing PVL with massive aortic regurgitation due to early partial embolization of a Perceval valve and its successfully treatment with valve‐in‐valve by using a self‐expanding TAVR device.     

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.     

Concomitant transatrial valve‐in‐valve in pulmonal and tricuspid position

Transcatheter valve implantation in the pulmonary valve has been established as a valuable treatment option for patients with conduit failure in the right ventricular outflow tract, most often with the use of the Melody valve. Transcatheter valve‐in‐valve (VIV) implantation in the tricuspid position is restricted to single case reports, most often with the implantation of the Edwards SAPIEN valve. A 67 years old male with carcionoid syndrome and previously implanted bioprosthesis in the pulmonary and tricuspid valve now presented with worsening symptoms due to degeneration of both bioprostheses. The risk of new open surgery was deemed to high. We report of the first transatrial double VIV implantation using the balloon expandable Edwards SAPIEN XT in pulmonary and tricuspid position. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

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 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.     

Transvenous valve‐in‐valve replacement preserving the function of a transvalvular defibrillator lead

Although feasibility and efficacy of percutaneous tricuspid valve‐in‐valve implantation have been established, a transtricuspid pacing or defibrillator lead might preclude this technique: lead damage can cause lead dysfunction resulting in inappropriate or inefficient pacing or shocks. In these cases, lead removal is thought to be the only option. We describe a patient who presented with rapid clinical deterioration due to tricuspid valve stenosis early after implantation of an internal defibrillator with a transvalvular shock‐lead. A transvenous valve‐in‐valve implantation of the tricuspid valve was performed after protecting the defibrillator‐lead with a custom‐made covered stent. We describe the technical issues, the clinical outcome, and the evolution of lead function after implantation. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve implantation of a corevalve in a degenerated stenotic sapien heart valve prosthesis

Treatment options for re‐stenotic aortic valve prosthesis implanted by transcatheter technique have not been evaluated systematically. We describe the case of a 75‐year‐old dialysis patient who was treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation 3.5 years ago and now presented with severe stenosis of the percutaneous heart valve. The patient was initially treated with a trans‐apical implantation of an Edwards Sapien 26 mm balloon expandable valve. The patient remained asymptomatic for 3 years when he presented with increasing shortness of breath and significant calcification of the valve prosthesis on transesophageal echocardiography. Valve‐in‐valve percutaneous heart valve implantation using a 26‐mm CoreValve prosthesis was performed under local anesthesia. The prosthesis was implanted without prior valvuloplasty. Pacing with a frequency of 140/min was applied during placement of the valve prosthesis. Positioning was done with great care using only fluoroscopic guidance with the aim to have the ventricular strut end of the CoreValve prosthesis 5 mm higher than the ventricular strut end of the Edwards Sapien prosthesis. After placement of the CoreValve prosthesis within the Edwards Sapien valve additional valvuloplasty with rapid pacing was performed in order to further expand the CoreValve prosthesis. The final result was associated with a remaining mean gradient of 5 mm Hg and no aortic regurgitation. In conclusion, implantation of a CoreValve prosthesis for treatment of a restenotic Edwards Sapien prosthesis is feasible and is associated with a good functional result. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Successful treatment of a paravalvular leak with balloon cracking and valve‐in‐valve TAVR

Transcatheter heart valve implantation into degenerated bioprosthetic valves (ViV‐THV implantation) has become an established procedure for high risk patients. In general, paravalvular leak (PVL) is a contraindication for valve‐in‐valve‐TAVR (ViV‐TAVR). Herein, we report on a 81‐year‐old patient presenting with acute heart failure for a failing aortic bioprosthesis (Medtronic Mosaic 27 mm). Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography during urgent ViV‐TAVR revealed a PVL previously not detected. After transfemoral implantation of a 26 mm‐Evolut‐R, balloon‐fracturing of the bioprosthetic ring was performed using a 24 mm True Dilatation balloon for treatment of the PVL. Afterward, left ventricular to aortic peak‐to‐peak pressure gradient measured 2–4mmHg. Transesophageal echocardiography merely revealed trace PVL. Aortic root angiography showed no PVL. At discharge, echocardiography measured a transprosthetic mean gradient of 5mmHg detecting no PVL. Intentional ring‐fracturing of an aortic valve prostheses may prove not only to be effective in lowering transvalvular gradients after valve‐in‐valve‐TAVR, but may also be a tool to treat PVL alongside degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses in certain patients.     

Delayed migration of sapien valve following a transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve implantation

We report two cases of delayed migration of the Sapien XT device after a successful mitral valve‐in‐valve (VIV) implantation. The procedure was performed through a transapical approach. Echocardiography was used to choose the size of the Sapien XT device. Although the immediate results were satisfactory both the cases presented with severe regurgitation (1 week and 3 months). Investigations revealed atrial migration of the Sapien device in both the cases, which was confirmed at the time of reoperation. We discuss possible mechanisms, which could have resulted in the delayed migration and highlight the difference between VIV procedures in mitral position versus other positions. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

First‐in‐man case report of the use of an Edwards‐Sapien valve to treat a regurgitant CoreValve aortic valve prosthesis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement for patients at high surgical risk, with favorable procedural outcomes. Aortic regurgitation remains an off‐label indication. Recent case reports describe the successful use of a second CoreValve inside a malpositioned first CoreValve. In the current case, we report for the first time a valve‐in‐valve procedure for the treatment of a severely insufficient CoreValve prosthesis using the Edwards‐Sapien prosthesis. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, 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.