Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The issues behind crossing a bioprosthesis.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV TAVI) is rapidly arising as a safe and effective alternative to redo-surgery in the treatment of bioprostheses deterioration. While scientific community is currently focusing its attention on the most common limitations related to this procedure, such as the risk of coronary obstruction and patient-prosthesis mismatch, data regarding the first step of a ViV TAVI, the crossing of a degenerated bioprosthesis, are still lacking. The aim of this review is to analyze the available information about bioprosthesis crossing, to show the inherent challenges encountered by interventional cardiologists during valve crossing and to describe the current strategies to perform a correct crossing.

Report on outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and redo surgical aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate real-world outcomes of patients with degenerated biological aortic valve prostheses who had undergone valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) or reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients who had undergone ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR for a degenerated biological aortic valve prosthesis in the Netherlands between January 2014 and December 2018 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients with a prior homograft, active endocarditis or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis were excluded. Patients were matched using the propensity score. The primary endpoint was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality at different time points, in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from the Netherlands Heart Registration. RESULTS: From 16 cardiac centres, 653 patients were included in the study (374 ViV-TAVI and 279 redo-SAVR). European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I) was higher in ViV-TAVI patients (19.4, interquartile range (IQR) 13.3-27.9 vs 13.8, IQR 8.3-21.9, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching, 165 patients were matched with acceptable covariate balance. In the matched cohorts, the primary endpoint was not significantly different for ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.02). Procedural, 30-day and 1­year all-cause mortality rates, incidence of in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year were also similar between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR have similar mortality and morbidity.

5 Year Outcomes of Patients With Aortic Structural Valve Deterioration Treated With Transcatheter Valve in Valve - A Single Center Prospective Registry.

The Valve-in-Valve (ViV) technique is an established alternative for the treatment of structural bioprosthetic valve deterioration (SVD). Data describing the intermediate term follow up of patients treated with this approach is scarce. We report on our intermediate-term outcomes of patients with SVD in the Aortic position treated with ViV. Included were patients with symptomatic SVD in the aortic position valve who were treated by Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) during the years 2010-2019 in our center. Three main outcomes were examined during the follow up period: NYHA functional class, ViV-TAVI hemodynamic per echocardiography, and mortality. Our cohort consisted of 85 patients (mean age 78.8 ± 8.9 years). The indications for aortic ViV were: SVD isolated aortic stenosis in 37.6%, SVD isolated aortic regurgitation in 42.2% and combined valve pathology in 20.0%. Self-expandable and balloon-expandable devices were used in 73 (85.9%) and 12 (14.1%), respectively. Average follow up was 3.7 ± 2.4 years. 95 and 91% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II at 1 and 5 year follow up respectively. At one year, the mean trans-aortic valve pressure was 15 ± 9 mmHg and rates of ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation were 3.7%. Mortality at one year was 8.6% (95% CI 2.3-14.4) and 31% (95% CI 16.5-42.5) at 5 years. ViV in the aortic position offers an effective and durable treatment option for patient with SVD, with low rates of all-cause mortality, excellent hemodynamic and improved functional capacity at intermediate follow up.

Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-Surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic (BP) valves have been increasingly used for aortic valve replacement over the last decade. Due to their limited durability, patients presenting with failed BP valves are rising. Valve in Valve - Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (ViV-TAVI) emerged as an alternative to the gold standard redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (redo-SAVR). However, the utility of ViV-TAVI is poorly understood. METHODS: A systematic electronic search of the scientific literature was done in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only studies which compared the safety and efficacy of ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR head to head in failed BP valves were included. RESULTS: Six observational studies were eligible and included 594 patients, of whom 255 underwent ViV- TAVI and 339 underwent redo-SAVR. There was no significant difference between ViV-TAVI and redo- SAVR for procedural, 30 day and 1 year mortality rates. ViV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (OR: 0.43, CI: 0.21-0.89; P = 0.02) and a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR: 5.45, CI: 0.94-31.58; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference for stroke, major bleeding, vascular complications and postprocedural aortic valvular gradients more than 20 mm-hg. CONCLUSION: Our results reiterate the safety and feasibility of ViV-TAVI for failed aortic BP valves in patients deemed to be at high risk for surgery. VIV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation with a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak.