OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is evolving as an alternative to reoperative valve replacement in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses. Nevertheless, hemodynamic performance is limited by the previously implanted xenograft. We report our experience with patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after valve-in-valve implantation in the aortic position. METHODS: Eleven patients (aged 79.3 ± 6.1 years) received transapical implantation of a balloon-expandable pericardial heart valve into a degenerated bioprosthesis (size, 23.9 ± 1.6 mm; range, 21-27 mm) in the aortic position. All patients were considered high risk for surgical valve replacement (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, 31.8% ± 24.1%). Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2), determined by discharge echocardiography. RESULTS: Severe PPM was evident in 5 patients (group 1) and absent in 6 patients (group 2). Mean transvalvular gradients decreased from 29.2 ± 15.4 mm Hg before implantation to 21.2 ± 9.7 mm Hg at discharge (group 1) and from 28.2 ± 9.0 mm Hg before implantation to 15.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg at discharge (group 2). Indexed effective orifice area increased from 0.5 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.6 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) and from 0.6 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.8 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2). Aortic regurgitation decreased from grade 2.0 ± 1.1 to 0.4 ± 0.5 overall. No differences in New York Heart Association class improvement or survival during follow-up were observed. One patient required reoperation for symptomatic PPM 426 days after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Valve-in-valve implantation can be performed in high-risk surgical patients to avoid reoperation. However, PPM frequently occurs, making adequate patient selection crucial. Small bioprostheses (<23 mm) should be avoided. Implantation into 23-mm xenografts can be recommended only for patients with a body surface area less than 1.8 m(2). Larger prostheses seem to carry a lower risk for PPM. Although no delay in clinical improvement was seen at short-term, 1 PPM-related surgical intervention raises concern regarding long-term performance. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is evolving as an alternative to reoperative valve replacement in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses. Nevertheless, hemodynamic performance is limited by the previously implanted xenograft. We report our experience with patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after valve-in-valve implantation in the aortic position. METHODS: Eleven patients (aged 79.3 ± 6.1 years) received transapical implantation of a balloon-expandable pericardial heart valve into a degenerated bioprosthesis (size, 23.9 ± 1.6 mm; range, 21-27 mm) in the aortic position. All patients were considered high risk for surgical valve replacement (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, 31.8% ± 24.1%). Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2), determined by discharge echocardiography. RESULTS: Severe PPM was evident in 5 patients (group 1) and absent in 6 patients (group 2). Mean transvalvular gradients decreased from 29.2 ± 15.4 mm Hg before implantation to 21.2 ± 9.7 mm Hg at discharge (group 1) and from 28.2 ± 9.0 mm Hg before implantation to 15.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg at discharge (group 2). Indexed effective orifice area increased from 0.5 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.6 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) and from 0.6 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.8 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2). Aortic regurgitation decreased from grade 2.0 ± 1.1 to 0.4 ± 0.5 overall. No differences in New York Heart Association class improvement or survival during follow-up were observed. One patient required reoperation for symptomatic PPM 426 days after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Valve-in-valve implantation can be performed in high-risk surgical patients to avoid reoperation. However, PPM frequently occurs, making adequate patient selection crucial. Small bioprostheses (<23 mm) should be avoided. Implantation into 23-mm xenografts can be recommended only for patients with a body surface area less than 1.8 m(2). Larger prostheses seem to carry a lower risk for PPM. Although no delay in clinical improvement was seen at short-term, 1 PPM-related surgical intervention raises concern regarding long-term performance. Copyright Â
Authors: Marian Kukucka; Miralem Pasic; Stephan Dreysse; Semih Buz; Thorsten Drews; Alexander Mladenow; Helmut Habazettl; Hermann Kuppe; Axel Unbehaun; Roland Hetzer Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-07
Authors: Sami Kueri; Fabian A Kari; Rafael Ayala Fuentes; Hans-Hinrich Sievers; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Wolfgang Bothe Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 5.594
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
Authors: Anupama Shivaraju; Jonathan Michel; Antonio H Frangieh; Ilka Ott; Christian Thilo; Heribert Schunkert; Adnan Kastrati; Martin B Leon; Danny Dvir; Susheel Kodali; Vinayak Bapat; Mayra Guerrero; Albert M Kasel Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 5.501
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