Literature DB >> 29688174

Matched comparison of next- and early-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve implantations in failed surgical aortic bioprostheses.

Moritz Seiffert1, Hendrik Treede, Joachim Schofer, Axel Linke, Jochen Woehrle, Hardy Baumbach, Julinda Mehilli, Vinayak Bapat, Matheus Simonato, Thomas Walther, Mathias Kullmer, Peter Boekstegers, Stephan Ensminger, Thomas Kurz, Hélène Eltchaninoff, Ardawan Rastan, Nicolas Werner, Arend de Weger, Christian Frerker, Bernward Lauer, Olivier Muller, Brian Whisenant, Arun Thukkani, Giora Weisz, Danny Dvir.   

Abstract

AIMS: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (VinV) is established for the treatment of degenerated surgical bioprostheses in patients at high operative risk. Our aim was to report on the first large assessment of VinV with next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves. METHODS AND
RESULTS: After SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 VinV, 514 patients were analysed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting. Standardised clinical and haemodynamic outcomes were compared, and core laboratory evaluation of implantation depth was performed. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 0.6% and 3.5% for SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN XT (p=0.077). Residual transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in 38.3% (SAPIEN 3) and 35.7% (SAPIEN XT) of patients (p=0.627) with increased rates in small bioprostheses (≤21 mm true ID). In SAPIEN 3 VinV, low implantation depth >20% THV stent frame length was associated with a higher rate of elevated transaortic gradients (p=0.048). Similarly, an implantation depth >5 mm was linked to more pacemaker implantations (p=0.01). Overall, a trend towards higher pacemaker implantation rates was observed after SAPIEN 3 VinV (6% vs. 2.5% in SAPIEN XT, p=0.071).
CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic VinV with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 was similarly safe and effective. However, residual stenosis remains a concern, particularly in smaller bioprostheses and with increasing implantation depth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29688174     DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EuroIntervention        ISSN: 1774-024X            Impact factor:   6.534


  4 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac surgery 2018 reviewed.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Steffen Bargenda; Hristo Kirov; Alexandros Moschovas; Sophie Tkebuchava; Rauf Safarov; Mahmoud Diab; Gloria Faerber
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2019-03-30       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 2.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Abdallah El Sabbagh; Mohammed Al-Hijji; Mayra Guerrero
Journal:  Heart Views       Date:  2022-05-16

3.  Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses: are patients with small surgical bioprostheses at higher risk for unfavourable mid-term outcomes?

Authors:  Clarence Pingpoh; Holger Schroefel; Tanja Franz; Martin Czerny; Maximilian Kreibich; Martin Moser; Christoph Bode; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Franz-Josef Neumann; Willibald Hochholzer; Matthias Siepe
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-11

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.