Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Valve-in-Valve with a Supra-Annular Valve.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve [ViV]) has become an established procedure. Elevated gradients and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) have previously been reported in mixed TAVR cohorts. We analyzed our single-center experience using the third-generation self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R prosthesis, with an emphasis on the incidence and outcomes of PPM. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from our TAVR database. Intraprocedural and intrahospital outcomes are reported. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients underwent ViV-TAVR with the Evolut R prosthesis. Mean age was 75.5 ± 9.5 years, 64% were males. The mean log EuroScore was 21.6 ± 15.7%. The mean time between initial surgical valve implantation and ViV-TAVR was 8.8 ± 3.2 years. The mean true internal diameter of the implanted surgical valves was 20.9 ± 2.2 mm. Post-AVR, 60% had no PPM, 34% had moderate PPM, and 6% had severe PPM. After ViV-TAVR, 33% had no PPM, 29% had moderate, and 39% had severe PPM. After implantation, the mean transvalvular gradient was reduced significantly from 36.4 ± 15.2 to 15.5 ± 9.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation after ViV-TAVR. No conversion to surgery was necessary. Estimated Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 year for all patients was 87.4%. One-year survival showed no significant difference according to post-ViV PPM groups (p = 0.356). CONCLUSION: ViV-TAVR using a supra-annular valve resulted in low procedural and in-hospital complication rates. However, moderate or severe PPM was common, with no influence on short-term survival. PPM may not be a suitable factor to predict survival after ViV-TAVR.

The 10-year horizon: Survival and structural valve degeneration in first-generation transcatheter aortic valves.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment for high- or intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. As more low-risk patients are being treated, transcatheter heart valve durability is gaining importance. Data on structural valve deterioration beyond 8 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is limited. AIM: To evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with a follow-up of ≥10 years, focusing on survival and structural valve deterioration, according to the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery definitions. METHODS: Only patients with a follow-up of ≥ 10 years were included in this study (n=510). Using serial echocardiographic data, the cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure were analysed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used for predictor assessment. RESULTS: Mean age was 79.6±6.7 years, with a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 19.8±12.7%. Immediate procedural mortality was 2.9%, and 30-day mortality was 7.8%. Kaplan-Meier-estimated survival at 10 years was 10.3±1.5%. At 10 years, the cumulative incidences of severe and moderate structural valve deterioration were 4.3% and 13%, respectively, for the total population. The cumulative incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure at 10 years was 9.0%. There was a significant difference in the rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure depending on valve type: structural valve deterioration, SAPIEN 8.9% vs CoreValve 2.2% at 10 years (P=0.001); bioprosthetic valve failure, SAPIEN 13.9% vs CoreValve 6.7% at 10 years (P=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure of early transcatheter heart valves was low at 10 years. The identified differences between valve types must be validated using current-generation devices in younger patients.

Anatomical reasons for failure of dual-filter cerebral embolic protection application in TAVR: A CT-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The dual-filter Sentinel™ Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) is increasingly used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, complex vascular anatomy may challenge Sentinel-CPS deployment. AIM OF THE STUDY: We sought to investigate the impact of anatomic features of the aortic arch and the supra-aortic arteries on technical device failure of Sentinel-CPS application. METHODS: Analysis of the multislice computed tomography pre-TAVR aortograms of all patients undergoing TAVR with Sentinel-CPS between 2016 and 2020 (n = 92) was performed. We investigated the impact of aortic arch anatomy, configuration, and the angles of the supra-aortic arteries, including the determination of vascular tortuosity index on device failure of Sentinel-CPS application. RESULTS: The Sentinel-CPS was applied successfully in 83 patients (90.2%). Device failure in nine patients (9.8%) was due to the infeasibility to perform correct deployment of both filters (n = 7) and to obtain peripheral radial access (n = 2). Patients with a failure of Sentinel-CPS application had a higher right subclavian tortuosity index (217 [92-324] vs. 150 [42-252], p = .046), a higher brachiocephalic tortuosity index (27 [5-51] vs. 10 [0-102], p = 0.033) and a larger angulation of the brachiocephalic artery (59° [22-80] vs. 39° [7-104], p = .014) compared with patients with successful application. A brachiocephalic angle more than 59° was predictive for device failure. No differences in aortic arch anatomy or common carotid artery tortuosity were detected between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Brachiocephalic tortuosity was found to be associated with failure of Sentinel-CPS application. Filter-based usage should be avoided in TAVR patients with a brachiocephalic angle more than 59°.

Effects of a dual-filter-based cerebral embolic protection device in transcatheter aortic valve replacement on cerebral oxygen saturation: A prospective pilot study.

PURPOSE: The Sentinel Cerebral Protection System (Sentinel-CPS) is increasingly used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the impact of inserting the Sentinel-CPS inside the brain-supplying arteries on cerebral perfusion and oxygenation is unknown. METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with (n = 10) and without (n = 10) cerebral embolic protection using the Sentinel-CPS were prospectively observed. All patients received conscious sedation and cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2 ) was continuously measured with near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). The cumulative perioperative cerebral desaturation was calculated for each patient by multiplying rSO2 below an individualized desaturation threshold by time. In addition, rSO2 values at the time of Sentinel-CPS insertion, filter positioning, and device retraction were analyzed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in cumulative cerebral desaturation in patients with Sentinel-CPS (median [IQR]) (0 [0/81] s%) and without (median [IQR]) (0 [0/23] s%), p = .762. A total of 6 patients (33.3%) experienced a perioperative decrease in rSO2 below the individualized desaturation threshold (n = 3 with Sentinel-CPS, n = 3 without Sentinel-CPS; p = 1.000). Cerebral desaturation was detected during valve deployment (n = 5) and after postdilatation (n = 1). No desaturation events occurred during Sentinel-CPS insertion, filter positioning, or retraction. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study revealed no difference in cumulative perioperative cerebral desaturation between TAVR with and without Sentinel-CPS. Catheter- and filter-based manipulations in the brain-supplying arteries for Sentinel-CPS application were not associated with a decrease of cerebral perfusion and oxygenation.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement: Comprehensive Midterm Evaluation of Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Implantation From the VIVID Registry.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. METHODS: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. RESULTS: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76-996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510-1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR (P<0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients (P=0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P<0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P=0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P=0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74-12.56; P=0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88-21.53; P<0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.

TAVR in Patients on Hemodialysis: Outcome of A High-Risk Patient Group.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative mortality is high and long-term survival is poor for patients on hemodialysis undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a safe and effective therapy for high-risk patients suffering from aortic valve stenosis. However, in patients on hemodialysis only limited information is available on the outcome following TAVR. METHODS: Of the 2613 consecutive patients in our single-center TAVR registry, all hemodialysis patients, were identified. Demographics, procedural details, clinical outcomes, mortality, and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-two hemodialysis patients with a mean age of 75.2±8.2 years, a mean STS predicted risk of mortality of 11.1±9.5% and a mean logEuroScore of 27.9±18.8% underwent TAVR. Mean duration on hemodialysis prior to intervention was 62.8±49.6 months. A transfemoral access was chosen in 24 patients, a transapical in 16, and a transaxillary and a transaortic in one patient, respectively. Estimated survival at 30 days, one, three and five years was 83.3%, 68.3%, 37.7% and 18.9%, respectively. Estimated median survival was 1.8±0.4 years. VARC-2 defined perioperative complications included stroke in 7.1% (3/42), major bleeding in 16.7% (7/42), and vascular complications in 7.1% (3/42). In two patients, echocardiographic examination at three and four years, respectively, showed evidence for structural valve deterioration. CONCLUSION: A high number of patients with ESRD undergoing TAVR require a non-transfemoral access. Predominantly, bleeding events contribute to the perioperative morbidity. An estimated median survival of less than two years after TAVR allows only limited assessment of valve prosthesis durability. Cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality contribute equally to the causes of death beyond the first year after TAVR.

Impact of a Two-Filter Cerebral Embolic Protection Device on the Complexity and Risk of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing use of cerebral protection devices in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to analyze if the use of these devices itself has an impact on the complexity and the risk of TAVR. METHODS: Between February 2016 and July 2017, 391 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR with Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R (n = 196) or Edwards Sapien 3 (n = 195). In 39 patients, the Claret Sentinel™ embolic protection device (CS-EPD) was used. Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed, comparing fluoroscopy/operation time, amount of contrast used, vascular events, and postprocedural renal function in TAVR patients with (n = 39) and without (n = 352) CS-EPD. RESULTS: The CS-EPD was placed through the right radial (n = 35) or brachial (n = 4) artery. Procedural success rate defined as correct deployment and retraction of both filters was 94.9%. No device-related vascular complications occurred. TAVR patients with CS-EPD showed a significantly higher total operation time, total fluoroscopy time, and amount of used contrast (85.4 ± 39.3 vs. 64 ± 29.8 minutes, p = 0.002; 20.7 ± 9.3 vs. 13.7 ± 7 minutes, p ≤ 0.001; 133.7 ± 42.6 vs. 109.7 ± 44.5 mL, p = 0.001). Comparing the initial third of patients receiving a CS-EPD with the last third of CS-EPD cases, procedural time had decreased significantly (102.5 ± 34.9 vs. 67 ± 11.9; p = 0.002). There were no differences in postprocedural renal failure (p = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Our data add evidence that the application of the CS-EPD is not associated with an additional risk for the patient. Although procedural time and amount of contrast are still higher when using the CS-EPD, there were no device-related complications or increased incidence of renal failure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: an effective hybrid procedure in selected patients.

OBJECTIVES: Simultaneous surgical off-pump coronary revascularization and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as a hybrid procedure may be a therapeutic option for patients with a TAVI indication who are not suitable for percutaneous coronary intervention and for patients who have an indication for combined surgical aortic valve implantation and coronary artery bypass grafting but present with a porcelain aorta. Early outcomes of these patients are analysed in this study. METHODS: From February 2011 to April 2017, hybrid TAVI/off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) was performed in 12 (60%) patients, hybrid TAVI/minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in 6 (30%) patients and staged TAVI/OPCAB in 2 (10%) patients. Endpoints of this study were 30-day mortality, device success and postoperative adverse events as defined by the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2). RESULTS: The median age at the time of surgery was 77 years [interquartile range (IQR), 70-81] with a median logistic EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons' Predicted Risk score of 16.1% (IQR, 9.3-28.1) and 3.9% (IQR, 2.2-5.6), respectively. The median Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score was 16.5 (IQR, 9.8-22.8). TAVI implantation routes were transaortic in 9 (45%) patients, transapical and transfemoral in 5 (25%) patients each and trans-subclavian in 1 (5%) patient. Complete myocardial revascularization was achieved in 75% of patients. Device success rate was 100%. Paravalvular aortic regurgitation did not exceed mild in any patient. Stroke/transient ischaemic attack, vascular complications and myocardial infarction were not observed. Re-exploration for bleeding was required in 1 (5%) patient. Thirty-day mortality was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid OPCAB/MIDCAB and TAVI prove to be a safe and effective alternative treatment option in selected higher risk patients.

Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event. METHODS: A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls). RESULTS: Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta -0.023; 95% CI -0.032 to -0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta -0.11; 95% CI -0.161 to -0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta -0.01; 95% CI -0.013 to -0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta -0.064; 95% CI -0.095 to -0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.

Unexpected results after sternal reconstruction with plates, cables and cannulated screws.

OBJECTIVES: During the last decade, various plate fixation systems have been developed for the treatment of complicated sternal dehiscence after open-heart surgery. One of them is the Modular Sternal Cable System© (MSCS), which promises optimal distribution of forces along the whole sternum by using plates, cannulated screws and cables. However, in comparison with other systems, there is a lack of outcome data. METHODS: Sternal reconstruction with the MSCS was performed in 11 patients (male n = 10, age 72.0 ± 7.3 years) with complicated sternal dehiscence following cardiac surgery, and 73% of them had a history of sternal infection. Sternal reconstruction included bilateral longitudinal plating and thoracic re-closure with 4-9 cables. Patients received postoperative examination, focusing on sternal wound conditions and clinical stability. If there was any suspicion of recurrent wound infection, computed tomographic scans were done in the early postoperative period or in the long term, in order to evaluate bony consolidation and integrity of osteosynthetic material. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 165 ± 59 min, the mean intubation time 4.7 ± 5.3 min and the mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1 day (median) (range 1-23 days), with a total hospital stay of 9 days (median) (range 5-64 days). Operative mortality was 0%. One patient died on the 65th postoperative day of a non-MSCS-related cause. Sternal wound infection occurred in 6 patients (54.5%) and made hardware removal necessary in 5 of them early postoperatively (median 14 days) and in 1 patient late postoperatively (1058 days). In another patient, material was removed 715 days after MSCS application due to persisting sternal pain. CONCLUSIONS: A high incidence of postoperative wound infections was observed after implantation of the MSCS. It may be speculated that hardware design (e.g. the absence of a locking system, large screws) compromises osseous microcirculation, favouring the development of infection. This should be kept in mind for further development of sternal reconstruction systems.

Placement of Neochords in Mitral Valve Repair: Enhanced Exposure of the Papillary Muscles Using a Standard Valve Sizer.

Minimally invasive mitral valve repair with placement of artificial chordae for mitral valve regurgitation has become the standard of care. In some cases, such as Barlow's disease or bileaflet prolapse, papillary muscle exposure may be difficult. By using a valve sizer to retract both leaflets, visualization can be optimized, thus simplifying suture placement and thereby minimizing cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. This technique is simple, is cost effective, and can be applied quickly.

Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting.

BACKGROUND: Due to a considerable rise in bioprosthetic as opposed to mechanical valve implantations, an increase of patients presenting with failing bioprosthetic surgical valves in need of a reoperation is to be expected. Redo surgery may pose a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an innovative, less-invasive treatment alternative for these patients. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the outcome of consecutive patients after a valve-in-valve TAVI [transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV)] as compared to a standard reoperation [surgical aortic valve redo-operation (SAV-in-SAV)] has not yet been performed. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after TAV-in-SAV and SAV-in-SAV in a single center setting. METHODS: All SAV-in-SAV and TAV-in-SAV patients from January 2001 to October 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with previous mechanical or transcatheter valves, active endocarditis and concomitant cardiac procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, preoperative data, post-procedural complications, and 30-day mortality were collected from a designated database. Mean values ± SD were calculated for all continuous variables. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using the t-test for independent samples. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 50 patients (49%) underwent a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure, while 52 patients (51%) underwent redo-surgery. Patients in the TAV-in-SAV group were significantly older, had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE and exhibited a lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction than patients in the SAV-in-SAV group (78.1±6.7 vs. 66.2±13.1, P<0.001; 27.4±18.7 vs. 14.4±10, P<0.001; and 49.8±13.1 vs. 56.7±15.8, P=0.019 respectively). Postoperative pacemaker implantation and chest tube output were higher in the SAV-in-SAV group compared to the TAV-in-SAV group [11 (21%) vs. 3 (6%), P=0.042 and 0.9±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.9, P=0.047, respectively]. There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke or dialysis postoperatively. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups [TAV-in-SAV2 (4%) vs. SAV-in-SAV0, P=0.238]. Kaplan-Meier (KM) 1-year survival was significantly lower in the TAV-in-SAV group than in the SAV-in-SAV group (83% vs. 96%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation shows that both groups, irrespective of different baseline comorbidities, show very good early clinical outcomes. While redo surgery is still the standard of care, a subgroup of patients may profit from the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure.