OBJECTIVES: There are minimal data regarding clinical outcomes and echocardiographic findings after transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR). BACKGROUND: TMVR therapy has emerged as therapy for a degenerated bioprosthetic valve failure. METHODS: The authors retrospectively identified patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses who underwent redo SMVR or TMVR at 3 U.S. institutions. The authors compared clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who had TMVR with those of patients who underwent redo SMVR. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent TMVR and 59 patients underwent SMVR during the study period. Mean age and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) scores were significantly higher in patients with TMVR than in those with SMVR (age 74.9 ± 9.4 years vs. 63.7 ± 14.9 years; p < 0.001; STS PROM 12.7 ± 8.0% vs. 8.7 ± 10.1%; p < 0.0001). Total procedure time, intensive care unit hours, and post-procedure length of stay were all significantly shorter in the TMVR group. There was no difference in mortality at 1 year between the 2 groups (TMVR 11.3% vs. SMVR 11.9%; p = 0.92). Mean mitral valve pressure gradient and the grade of mitral regurgitation (MR) were similar between the TMVR group and the SMVR group (mitral valve pressure gradient 7.1 ± 2.5 mm Hg vs. 6.5 ± 2.5 mm Hg; p = 0.42; MR [≥moderate] 3.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 1.00) at 30 days. At 1 year, the mitral valve pressure gradient was higher in the TMVR group (TMVR 7.2 ± 2.7 vs. SMVR 5.5 ± 1.8; p = 0.01), although there was no difference in the grade of MR. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher STS PROM in TMVR patients, there was no difference in 1-year mortality between the TMVR and SMVR groups. Echocardiographic findings after TMVR were similar to SMVR at 30 days. There was a statistically significant difference in mitral gradient at 1 year, though this is likely not clinically important. TMVR may be an alternative to SMVR in patients with previous mitral bioprosthetic valves.
OBJECTIVES: There are minimal data regarding clinical outcomes and echocardiographic findings after transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR). BACKGROUND:TMVR therapy has emerged as therapy for a degenerated bioprosthetic valve failure. METHODS: The authors retrospectively identified patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses who underwent redo SMVR or TMVR at 3 U.S. institutions. The authors compared clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who had TMVR with those of patients who underwent redo SMVR. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent TMVR and 59 patients underwent SMVR during the study period. Mean age and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) scores were significantly higher in patients with TMVR than in those with SMVR (age 74.9 ± 9.4 years vs. 63.7 ± 14.9 years; p < 0.001; STS PROM 12.7 ± 8.0% vs. 8.7 ± 10.1%; p < 0.0001). Total procedure time, intensive care unit hours, and post-procedure length of stay were all significantly shorter in the TMVR group. There was no difference in mortality at 1 year between the 2 groups (TMVR 11.3% vs. SMVR 11.9%; p = 0.92). Mean mitral valve pressure gradient and the grade of mitral regurgitation (MR) were similar between the TMVR group and the SMVR group (mitral valve pressure gradient 7.1 ± 2.5 mm Hg vs. 6.5 ± 2.5 mm Hg; p = 0.42; MR [≥moderate] 3.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 1.00) at 30 days. At 1 year, the mitral valve pressure gradient was higher in the TMVR group (TMVR 7.2 ± 2.7 vs. SMVR 5.5 ± 1.8; p = 0.01), although there was no difference in the grade of MR. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher STS PROM in TMVRpatients, there was no difference in 1-year mortality between the TMVR and SMVR groups. Echocardiographic findings after TMVR were similar to SMVR at 30 days. There was a statistically significant difference in mitral gradient at 1 year, though this is likely not clinically important. TMVR may be an alternative to SMVR in patients with previous mitral bioprosthetic valves.
Authors: Alina Zubarevich; Marcin Szczechowicz; Konstantin Zhigalov; Philipp Marx; Alexander Lind; Rolf Alexander Jánosi; Tienush Rassaf; Sharaf-Eldin Shehada; Rizwan Malik; Markus Kamler; Matthias Thielmann; Bastian Schmack; Arjang Ruhparwar; Alexander Weymann; Daniel Wendt Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-09
Authors: Adam S Evans; Menachem M Weiner; Shahzad Shaefi; Prakash A Patel; Matthew M Townsley; Abirami Kumaresan; Jared W Feinman; Ashley V Fritz; Archer K Martin; Toby B Steinberg; J Ross Renew; Jane L Gui; Brian Radvansky; Himani Bhatt; Sudhakar Subramani; Archit Sharma; Jacob T Gutsche; John G Augoustides; Harish Ramakrishna Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.628