BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as a safe, effective alternative to redo aortic valve surgery in high-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. However, ViV-TAVR has been associated high postprocedural valvular gradients, compared with TAVR for native-valve aortic stenosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for a degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2019 at our center. The primary outcome was postprocedural mean aortic valve gradient. Outcomes were compared across surgical valve type (stented versus stentless), surgical valve internal diameter (≤19 versus >19 mm), and transcatheter aortic valve type (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable). RESULTS: Overall, 89 patients underwent ViV-TAVR. Mean age was 69.0±12.6 years, 61% were male, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 5.4 [interquartile range, 3.2-8.5]. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenotic (58% of patients), regurgitant (24%), or mixed (18%). The surgical valve was stented in 75% of patients and stentless in 25%. The surgical valve's internal diameter was ≤19 mm in 45% of cases. A balloon-expandable transcatheter valve was used in 53% of procedures. Baseline aortic valve area and mean gradients were 0.87±0.31 cm2 and 36±18 mmHg, respectively. These improved after ViV-TAVR to 1.38±0.55 cm2 and 18±11 mmHg at a median outpatient follow-up of 331 [67-394] days. Higher postprocedural mean gradients were associated with surgical valves having an internal diameter ≤19 mm (24±13 versus 16±8, P=0.002) and with stented surgical valves (22±11 versus 12±6, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ViV-TAVR is an effective option for treating degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses, with acceptable hemodynamic outcomes. Small surgical valves and stented surgical valves are associated with higher postprocedural gradients. 2021 Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as a safe, effective alternative to redo aortic valve surgery in high-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. However, ViV-TAVR has been associated high postprocedural valvular gradients, compared with TAVR for native-valve aortic stenosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR for a degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2019 at our center. The primary outcome was postprocedural mean aortic valve gradient. Outcomes were compared across surgical valve type (stented versus stentless), surgical valve internal diameter (≤19 versus >19 mm), and transcatheter aortic valve type (self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable). RESULTS: Overall, 89 patients underwent ViV-TAVR. Mean age was 69.0±12.6 years, 61% were male, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 5.4 [interquartile range, 3.2-8.5]. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenotic (58% of patients), regurgitant (24%), or mixed (18%). The surgical valve was stented in 75% of patients and stentless in 25%. The surgical valve's internal diameter was ≤19 mm in 45% of cases. A balloon-expandable transcatheter valve was used in 53% of procedures. Baseline aortic valve area and mean gradients were 0.87±0.31 cm2 and 36±18 mmHg, respectively. These improved after ViV-TAVR to 1.38±0.55 cm2 and 18±11 mmHg at a median outpatient follow-up of 331 [67-394] days. Higher postprocedural mean gradients were associated with surgical valves having an internal diameter ≤19 mm (24±13 versus 16±8, P=0.002) and with stented surgical valves (22±11 versus 12±6, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ViV-TAVR is an effective option for treating degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses, with acceptable hemodynamic outcomes. Small surgical valves and stented surgical valves are associated with higher postprocedural gradients. 2021 Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
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: William A Zoghbi; David Adams; Robert O Bonow; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Elyse Foster; Paul A Grayburn; Rebecca T Hahn; Yuchi Han; Judy Hung; Roberto M Lang; Stephen H Little; Dipan J Shah; Stanton Shernan; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; James D Thomas; Neil J Weissman Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Keith B Allen; Adnan K Chhatriwalla; David J Cohen; John T Saxon; Sanjeev Aggarwal; Anthony Hart; Suzanne Baron; J Russell Davis; Alex F Pak; Danny Dvir; A Michael Borkon Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: A Pieter Kappetein; Stuart J Head; Philippe Généreux; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Eugene H Blackstone; Thomas G Brott; David J Cohen; Donald E Cutlip; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Rebecca T Hahn; Ajay J Kirtane; Mitchell W Krucoff; Susheel Kodali; Michael J Mack; Roxana Mehran; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Pascal Vranckx; John G Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W Serruys; Martin B Leon Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 29.983