Mechanical Aortic Valve Dehiscence and Aortic Root Aneurysm: An Interesting Case With a Timely Diagnosis and Intervention.

Prosthetic aortic valve dehiscence is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication that can occur after aortic valve replacement surgery. This condition occurs when the prosthetic valve becomes detached or dislodged from its original position leading to aortic valve regurgitation and congestive heart failure. The most common risk factors for prosthetic valve dehiscence include infective endocarditis, ascending aortic aneurysm, and severe calcification of the aortic valve. Ankylosing spondylitis, non-infectious aortitis, and accompanying vasculitis can also cause aortic valve dehiscence. Transthoracic echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography usually reveal an unstable prosthesis with rocking motion and paravalvular regurgitation. Fluoroscopy and cardiac computed tomography (CT) are useful complementary tests, especially in patients with significant artifacts related to a valve prosthesis. Patients with prosthetic valve dehiscence and paravalvular regurgitation eventually develop heart failure and circulatory collapse. Timely diagnosis and early surgical intervention in these patients are crucial to achieve good long-term outcomes.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Multiple Recurrent Infective Endocarditis Secondary to Streptococcus mitis Bacteremia Despite Proper Antibiotic and Surgical Treatment.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare and potentially fatal disease. It is an infection of the endocardium of the heart and heart valves. One of the major complications faced by patients who have recovered from a first episode of IE is recurrent IE. Risk factors for recurrent IE include intravenous (IV) drug use, prior episodes of IE, poor dentition, recent dental procedures, male gender, age over 65, prosthetic heart valve endocarditis, chronic dialysis, positive valve culture(s) obtained at the time of surgical intervention, and persistent postoperative fever. We present a case of a 40-year-old male with a history of former IV heroin use who experienced multiple episodes of recurrent IE caused by the same pathogen, Streptococcus mitis. This recurrence occurred despite the patient completing the appropriate course of antibiotic therapy, undergoing valvular replacement, and maintaining drug abstinence for two years. This case highlights the challenges associated with identifying the source of infection and emphasizes the need to develop guidelines for surveillance and prophylaxis against recurrent IE.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis.

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Mitral Valve-in-Valve Versus Repeat Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Failed Mitral Bioprostheses.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MViV) replacement has emerged as an alternative to redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR) in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses deemed to be at a high surgical risk. The aim of this analysis was to compare the outcomes of MViV replacement with those of redo-SMVR in patients with a failed bioprosthetic mitral valve. Methods: We performed a study-level meta-analysis that compared MViV replacement with redo-SMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses. Seven observational studies, with a total of 5083 patients, were included (1138 patients [22.4%] in the MViV replacement arm). The primary focus was all-cause mortality. Additional outcomes included major bleeding, stroke, vascular complications, and mean mitral valve gradient at follow-up. Results: The in-hospital mortality was lower in patients who underwent MViV replacement than in those who underwent redo-SMVR (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P = .0023). The short-term mortality (<1 year) was numerically lower in the MViV replacement group (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.18-1.13; P = .069). At 1 year, the risk of mortality was similar in the 2 groups (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40; P = .906), and at midterm follow-up (≥1 year), there was a numerically higher risk of mortality in the MViV replacement group (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.00-2.29; P = .051). The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower in the MViV replacement group (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.56; P = .01). Additionally, stroke and vascular complications were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The in-hospital mortality was lower in the MViV replacement group than in the redo-SMVR group. There were no differences in mortality at short-term (<1 year), 1-year, or midterm (≥1 year) follow-ups.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.

Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis: Early and Late Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare early and late outcomes between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR. BACKGROUND: Published studies to date comparing redo surgical AVR (RS) with ViV transcatheter AVR for failed biological prostheses have been small and limited to early outcomes. METHODS: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, were linked to obtain patients undergoing ViV and RS for failed previous biological prostheses. Propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Early outcomes were compared using the McNemar test. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 558 patients undergoing intervention for failed biological prostheses between March 31, 2008, and September 30, 2017, at 11 Ontario institutions (ViV, n = 214; RS, n = 344) were included. Patients who underwent ViV were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching on 27 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n = 131 pairs). Mean time from initial AVR to RS or ViV was 8.6 ± 4.4 years and 11.3 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared with RS (absolute risk difference: -7.5%; 95% confidence interval: -12.6% to -2.3%). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusions were also lower with ViV, as was length of stay. Survival at 5 years was higher with ViV (76.8% vs. 66.8%; hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay and with increased survival compared with RS and may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prostheses.

Cardiogenic Shock Due to Late Chimney Stent Failure Following Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Although the safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement has improved, coronary ostium obstruction remains a significant complication, with chimney stenting a possible solution to circumvent this complication. In this case, we discuss the failure of a chimney stent in a case of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement resulting in cardiogenic shock. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).