John G Webb1, Michael J Mack2, Jonathon M White3, Danny Dvir4, Philipp Blanke5, Howard C Herrmann6, Jonathon Leipsic5, Susheel K Kodali7, Raj Makkar8, D Craig Miller9, Philippe Pibarot10, Augusto Pichard11, Lowell F Satler11, Lars Svensson12, Maria C Alu7, Rakesh M Suri13, Martin B Leon7. 1. Division of Cardiology, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: john.webb@vch.ca. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baylor Scott and White Health, Plano, Texas. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Radiology, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Structural Heart and Valve Center, Center for Interventional Vascular Therapy, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 8. Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 9. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 10. Department of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. 11. Division of Interventional Cardiology, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. 12. Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 13. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves has shown that valve-in-valve (VIV) TAVR is a feasible therapeutic option with acceptable acute procedural results. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined 30-day and 1-year outcomes in a large cohort of high-risk patients undergoing VIV TAVR. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic degeneration of surgical aortic bioprostheses at high risk (≥50% major morbidity or mortality) for reoperative surgery were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 VIV trial and continued access registries. RESULTS: Valve-in-valve procedures were performed in 365 patients (96 initial registry, 269 continued access patients). Mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.1 ± 4.7%. At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 2.7%, stroke was 2.7%, major vascular complication was 4.1%, conversion to surgery was 0.6%, coronary occlusion was 0.8%, and new pacemaker insertion was 1.9%. One-year all-cause mortality was 12.4%. Mortality fell from the initial registry to the subsequent continued access registry, both at 30 days (8.2% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.0001) and at 1 year (19.7% vs. 9.8%, respectively; p = 0.006). At 1 year, mean gradient was 17.6 mm Hg, and effective orifice area was 1.16 cm2, with greater than mild paravalvular regurgitation of 1.9%. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 54.2%), and mass index decreased (135.7 to 117.6 g/m2), with reductions in both mitral (34.9% vs. 12.7%) and tricuspid (31.8% vs. 21.2%) moderate or severe regurgitation (all p < 0.0001). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score increased (mean: 43.1 to 77.0) and 6-min walk test distance results increased (mean: 163.6 to 252.3 m; both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure is associated with relatively low mortality and complication rates, improved hemodynamics, and excellent functional and quality-of-life outcomes at 1 year. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves [PARTNER II]; NCT01314313).
BACKGROUND: Early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves has shown that valve-in-valve (VIV) TAVR is a feasible therapeutic option with acceptable acute procedural results. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined 30-day and 1-year outcomes in a large cohort of high-risk patients undergoing VIV TAVR. METHODS:Patients with symptomatic degeneration of surgical aortic bioprostheses at high risk (≥50% major morbidity or mortality) for reoperative surgery were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 VIV trial and continued access registries. RESULTS: Valve-in-valve procedures were performed in 365 patients (96 initial registry, 269 continued access patients). Mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.1 ± 4.7%. At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 2.7%, stroke was 2.7%, major vascular complication was 4.1%, conversion to surgery was 0.6%, coronary occlusion was 0.8%, and new pacemaker insertion was 1.9%. One-year all-cause mortality was 12.4%. Mortality fell from the initial registry to the subsequent continued access registry, both at 30 days (8.2% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.0001) and at 1 year (19.7% vs. 9.8%, respectively; p = 0.006). At 1 year, mean gradient was 17.6 mm Hg, and effective orifice area was 1.16 cm2, with greater than mild paravalvular regurgitation of 1.9%. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 54.2%), and mass index decreased (135.7 to 117.6 g/m2), with reductions in both mitral (34.9% vs. 12.7%) and tricuspid (31.8% vs. 21.2%) moderate or severe regurgitation (all p < 0.0001). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score increased (mean: 43.1 to 77.0) and 6-min walk test distance results increased (mean: 163.6 to 252.3 m; both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure is associated with relatively low mortality and complication rates, improved hemodynamics, and excellent functional and quality-of-life outcomes at 1 year. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves [PARTNER II]; NCT01314313).
Authors: Jaffar M Khan; Danny Dvir; Adam B Greenbaum; Vasilis C Babaliaros; Toby Rogers; Gabriel Aldea; Mark Reisman; G Burkhard Mackensen; Marvin H K Eng; Gaetano Paone; Dee Dee Wang; Robert A Guyton; Chandan M Devireddy; William H Schenke; Robert J Lederman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 11.195
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: Wolfgang von Scheidt; A Welz; M Pauschinger; T Fischlein; V Schächinger; H Treede; R Zahn; M Hennersdorf; J M Albes; R Bekeredjian; M Beyer; J Brachmann; C Butter; L Bruch; H Dörge; W Eichinger; U F W Franke; N Friedel; T Giesler; R Gradaus; R Hambrecht; M Haude; H Hausmann; M P Heintzen; W Jung; S Kerber; H Mudra; T Nordt; L Pizzulli; F-U Sack; S Sack; B Schumacher; G Schymik; U Sechtem; C Stellbrink; C Stumpf; H M Hoffmeister Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Tamunoinemi Bob-Manuel; Arindam Sharma; Amit Nanda; Devarshi Ardeshna; William Paul Skelton; Rami N Khouzam Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2018-01