Lenard Conradi1, Miriam Silaschi2, Moritz Seiffert3, Edith Lubos3, Stefan Blankenberg3, Hermann Reichenspurner2, Ulrich Schaefer3, Hendrik Treede2. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: lconradi@uke.de. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) is emerging as a novel treatment option for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses. We report our cumulative experience using 6 types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in all anatomic positions. METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients (74.1 ± 12.9 years, 50.7% male (38/75), logEuroSCORE I 26.2% ± 17.8%, STS-PROM 8.8% ± 7.4%) receiving ViV procedures from 2008 to 2014 were included for analysis. Data were prospectively gathered and retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: ViV was performed in aortic (72.0%, 54/75), mitral (22.7%, 17/75), tricuspid (2.7%, 2/75), and pulmonary (2.7%, 2/75) positions. THVs used were Edwards SAPIEN (XT)/SAPIEN3 (52.0%, 39/75), Medtronic Core Valve/Core Valve Evolut(R) (34.7%, 26/75), St Jude Portico (4.0%, 3/75), Boston Scientific Lotus (4.0%, 3/75), Jena Valve (2.7%, 2/75), and Medtronic Engager (2.7%, 2/75). Interval from index procedure to ViV was 9.3 ± 4.9 years. Access was transapical in 53.3% (40/75), transfemoral (transarterial or transvenous) in 42.7% (32/75), transaortic in 2.7% (2/75), and transjugular in 1.3% (1/75). ViV was successful in 97.3% (73/75) with 2 patients requiring sequential THV implantation for initial malpositioning. Overall immediate procedural (≤72 hours) and all-cause 30-day mortality were 2.7% (2/75) and 8.0% (6/75). Corresponding values after aortic ViV were 1.9% (1/54) and 5.6% (3/54). No periprocedural strokes or cases of coronary obstruction occurred. Paravalvular leakage was less than or equal to mild in all cases. After aortic ViV, gradients were max/mean 34.1 ± 14.2/20.1 ± 7.1 mm Hg and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.5 ± 1.4 cm(2). Corresponding values after mitral ViV were gradients max/mean 14.2 ± 8.2/4.7 ± 3.1 mm Hg and EOA 2.4 ± 0.9 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS: ViV can be performed in all anatomic positions with acceptable hemodynamic and clinical outcome in high-risk patients. Increasing importance of ViV can be anticipated considering growing use of surgical bioprostheses.
OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) is emerging as a novel treatment option for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses. We report our cumulative experience using 6 types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in all anatomic positions. METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive patients (74.1 ± 12.9 years, 50.7% male (38/75), logEuroSCORE I 26.2% ± 17.8%, STS-PROM 8.8% ± 7.4%) receiving ViV procedures from 2008 to 2014 were included for analysis. Data were prospectively gathered and retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: ViV was performed in aortic (72.0%, 54/75), mitral (22.7%, 17/75), tricuspid (2.7%, 2/75), and pulmonary (2.7%, 2/75) positions. THVs used were Edwards SAPIEN (XT)/SAPIEN3 (52.0%, 39/75), Medtronic Core Valve/Core Valve Evolut(R) (34.7%, 26/75), St Jude Portico (4.0%, 3/75), Boston Scientific Lotus (4.0%, 3/75), Jena Valve (2.7%, 2/75), and Medtronic Engager (2.7%, 2/75). Interval from index procedure to ViV was 9.3 ± 4.9 years. Access was transapical in 53.3% (40/75), transfemoral (transarterial or transvenous) in 42.7% (32/75), transaortic in 2.7% (2/75), and transjugular in 1.3% (1/75). ViV was successful in 97.3% (73/75) with 2 patients requiring sequential THV implantation for initial malpositioning. Overall immediate procedural (≤72 hours) and all-cause 30-day mortality were 2.7% (2/75) and 8.0% (6/75). Corresponding values after aortic ViV were 1.9% (1/54) and 5.6% (3/54). No periprocedural strokes or cases of coronary obstruction occurred. Paravalvular leakage was less than or equal to mild in all cases. After aortic ViV, gradients were max/mean 34.1 ± 14.2/20.1 ± 7.1 mm Hg and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.5 ± 1.4 cm(2). Corresponding values after mitral ViV were gradients max/mean 14.2 ± 8.2/4.7 ± 3.1 mm Hg and EOA 2.4 ± 0.9 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS: ViV can be performed in all anatomic positions with acceptable hemodynamic and clinical outcome in high-risk patients. Increasing importance of ViV can be anticipated considering growing use of surgical bioprostheses.
Authors: Ali Mohammad Haji Zeinali; Kyomars Abbasi; Mohammad Saheb Jam; Shahrooz Yazdani; Seyedeh Hamideh Mortazavi Journal: J Cardiovasc Thorac Res Date: 2017-09-30