Literature DB >> 22115664

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using Corevalve Revalving System for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses.

Francesco Bedogni1, Maria Luisa Laudisa, Samuele Pizzocri, Corrado Tamburino, Gian Paolo Ussia, Anna Sonia Petronio, Massimo Napodano, Angelo Ramondo, Patrizia Presbitero, Federica Ettori, Gennaro Santoro, Silvio Klugman, Federico De Marco, Nedy Brambilla, Luca Testa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) implantation in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CRS is an effective option in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. It may be an option for patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis, especially when the risk of a surgical redo is deemed prohibitive.
METHODS: CRS "valve-in-valve" implantation was performed in 25 high-risk patients with a failed bioprosthesis. Their mean age was 82.4 ± 3.2 years. New York Heart Association functional classes III and IV were present in 21 and 4 patients, respectively. The logistic EuroSCORE was 31.5 ± 14.8%, whereas the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 8.2 ± 4.2. Patients/prostheses were divided in type A (mainly stenotic, n = 9) and type B (mainly regurgitant, n = 16).
RESULTS: The implantation success rate was 100%. In group A, the peak aortic gradient significantly decreased from 77.6 ± 21.6 mm Hg to 34.6 ± 19.4 mm Hg (p = 0.001). In all but 2 patients in group B, no significant regurgitation was observed post-implantation. No patients died during the procedure. At 30 days, there were 3 deaths (12%), 2 myocardial infarctions (8%), and 3 atrioventricular blocks requiring pacemaker implantation (12%). At a mean follow-up of 6 months, there were another death (survival rate of 84%) and a pacemaker implantation (cumulative incidence of 16%). New York Heart Association functional class improved in all patients to I and II.
CONCLUSIONS: CRS implantation was feasible and effective regardless of the prevalent mode of failure. This finding may significantly affect the treatment of patients with a failed bioprosthesis deemed at a prohibitive risk for surgical redo.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22115664     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  9 in total

1.  Transcatheter Edwards Sapien XT valve in valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses via transfemoral access.

Authors:  Martin Greif; Philipp Lange; Helmut Mair; Christoph Becker; Christoph Schmitz; Gerhard Steinbeck; Christian Kupatt
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 2.  Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus reoperative conventional aortic valve replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Dong-Fang Zhao; Nelson Wang; Ya Ruth Huo; Marco Di Eusanio; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement-state of the art and a glimpse to the future: 'the Tailored Approach'.

Authors:  Francesco Bedogni; Alessandro Frigiola; Marco Ranucci; Nedy Brambilla; Rocco Antonio Montone; Mauro Agnifili; Lorenzo Menicanti; Luca Testa
Journal:  Eur Heart J Suppl       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 1.803

Review 4.  Transcatether Aortic Valve Implantation to Treat Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: Focus on the Specific Procedural Challenges.

Authors:  Cristina Aurigemma; Francesco Burzotta; Rocco Vergallo; Piero Farina; Enrico Romagnoli; Stefano Cangemi; Francesco Bianchini; Marialisa Nesta; Piergiorgio Bruno; Domenico D'Amario; Antonio Maria Leone; Carlo Trani
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-05-31

5.  Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the first case series in Asia with one-year follow-up.

Authors:  Paul Toon-Lim Chiam; See-Hooi Ewe; Jia-Lin Soon; Kay-Woon Ho; Yong-Koong Sin; Swee-Yaw Tan; Soo-Teik Lim; Tian-Hai Koh; Yeow-Leng Chua
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 1.858

6.  Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting.

Authors:  Magdalena Erlebach; Michael Wottke; Marcus-André Deutsch; Markus Krane; Nicolo Piazza; Ruediger Lange; Sabine Bleiziffer
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 7.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedure in Patients with Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Deterioration.

Authors:  Ross M Reul; Mahesh K Ramchandani; Michael J Reardon
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

8.  Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-An Lee; An-Hsun Chou; Victor Chien-Chia Wu; Dong-Yi Chen; Hsin-Fu Lee; Kuang-Tso Lee; Pao-Hsien Chu; Yu-Ting Cheng; Shang-Hung Chang; Shao-Wei Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Functional status and quality of life after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caroline A Kim; Suraj P Rasania; Jonathan Afilalo; Jeffrey J Popma; Lewis A Lipsitz; Dae Hyun Kim
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.