Role of imaging in third aortic valve implantation: TAV-in-TAV-in-SAV.

Coronary obstruction remains a primary concern for redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to supra-annular leaflets. Hereby, we present two valve-in-valve-in-valve cases, initially incorporating a surgical valve implanted to clarify our concept that the surgical valve serves to safeguard against the coronary ostium obstruction.

"Puncture-to-Loop" Technique to Retrieve Embolized Patent Foramen Ovale Occluder.

A 62-year-old man experienced embolization of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) occlusion device in the pulmonary artery. The device was successfully retrieved using "puncture to loop" technique, without the need of specific materials. This is a challenging retrieval situation, confirming the feasibility and flexibility of the technique. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Algorithm for systematic valve-crossing in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

The retrograde valve-crossing of a stenotic aortic valve is a crucial step in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure. In addition to being time-consuming and associated with an increased stroke risk, inappropriate valve-crossing may cause devastating complications. This tutorial review summarizes systematic and detailed techniques to cross the aortic valve. First, the main challenges in retrograde valve-crossing are depicted. Next, a step-by-step guidance on valve-crossing is provided, along with an in-depth description of the three-dimensional anatomy under a two-dimensional fluoroscopy view. Finally, modified techniques for different anatomies are described.

Transcaval transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve: A step-by-step procedural guidance.

We report the case of a 78-year-old female with Sapien 3 transcatheter heart valve implantation in the transcaval approach. In this setting, we describe the step-by-step management and technique of the transcaval transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

The COORDINATE Pilot Study: Impact of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Coordinator Program on Hospital and Patient Outcomes.

The transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment pathway is complex, leading to procedure-related delays. Dedicated TAVI coordinators can improve pathway efficiency. COORDINATE was a pilot observational prospective registry at three German centers that enrolled consecutive elective patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI to investigate the impact a TAVI coordinator program. Pathway parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed before (control group) and after TAVI coordinator program implementation (intervention phase). The number of repeated diagnostics remained unchanged after implementation. Patients with separate hospitalizations for screening and TAVI had long delays, which increased after implementation (65 days pre- vs. 103 days post-implementation); hospitalizations combining these were more efficient. The mean time between TAVI and hospital discharge remained constant. Nurse (p = 0.001) and medical technician (p = 0.008) working hours decreased. Patient satisfaction increased, and more consistent/intensive contact between patients and staff was reported. TAVI coordinators provided more post-TAVI support, including discharge management. No adverse effects on post-procedure or 30-day outcomes were seen. This pilot suggests that TAVI coordinator programs may improve aspects of the TAVI pathway, including post-TAVI care and patient satisfaction, without compromising safety. These findings will be further investigated in the BENCHMARK registry.

Case Report: Sapien 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve Embolization: Cause, Management, and Redo.

The transcatheter heart valve (THV) embolization is a rare but challenging complication in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We report the case of an 81-year-old man with Sapien 3 embolization caused by interrupted rapid pacing. In this setting, we describe the embolized THV management and the technique of the second Sapien 3 implantation.

Application of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve in Bicuspid Aortic Valve.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) remains challenging in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) because of unfavorable anatomy. New-generation balloon-expandable valve (BEV) appears to be a valid alternative to surgery, especially in some Asian countries with a higher prevalence of BAV. This tutorial review summarizes current thinking about how to plan and implant BEV in BAVs using versatile techniques. First, the authors depict the main morphological characteristics of BAVs and their effects on the TAVR procedure. Next, the authors provide preprocedural analysis on sizing, obtaining the optimal deployment projection, and how to simplify valve-crossing. Finally, the authors provide step-by-step guidance on how to deploy the BEVs with evolved iterations in terms of specific anatomies, calcified annulus, and giant annulus.

Predictors of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictors of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction after transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). BACKGROUND: LVOT obstruction is a major concern with TMVR, but limited data exist regarding its predictors and impact on outcomes. METHODS: Patients with pre-procedural multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) undergoing TMVR for failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve), annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring), and mitral annular calcification (valve-in-MAC) were included in this study. Echocardiographic and procedural characteristics were recorded, and comprehensive assessment with MDCT was performed to identify the predictors of LVOT obstruction (defined as an increment of mean LVOT gradient ≥10 mm Hg from baseline). The new LVOT (neo-LVOT) area left after TMVR was estimated by embedding a virtual valve into the mitral annulus on MDCT, simulating the procedure. RESULTS: Among 194 patients with pre-procedural MDCT undergoing TMVR (valve-in-valve, 107 patients; valve-in-ring, 50 patients; valve-in-MAC, 37 patients), LVOT obstruction was observed in 26 patients (13.4%), with a higher rate after valve-in-MAC than valve-in-ring and valve-in-valve (54.1% vs. 8.0% vs. 1.9%; p < 0.001). Patients with LVOT obstruction had significantly higher procedural mortality compared with those without LVOT obstruction (34.6% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis showed that an estimated neo-LVOT area ≤1.7 cm2 predicted LVOT obstruction with sensitivity of 96.2% and specificity of 92.3%. CONCLUSIONS: LVOT obstruction after TMVR was associated with higher procedural mortality. A small estimated neo-LVOT area was significantly associated with LVOT obstruction after TMVR and may help identify patients at high risk for LVOT obstruction.

Aortic annulus sizing in stenotic bicommissural non-raphe-type bicuspid aortic valves: reconstructing a three-dimensional structure using only two hinge points.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) anatomy is becoming an increasingly frequently encountered challenge in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Bicommissural non-raphe-type BAV (Sievers and Schmidtke Type 0) is composed morphologically of two aortic cusps with no raphe and is less common than the tricommissural or bicommissural raphe-type configurations. Precise annular sizing is a key step for successful TAVI in BAV. The challenge in bicommissural non-raphe-type BAV is that a three-dimensional structure has to be reconstructed using only two anatomical hinge points. For this reason, available software are limited when it comes to bicommissural non-raphe-type BAV. We propose that manual assessment of the aortic root in bicommissural non-raphe-type BAV using multi-planar reconstruction (MPR) software can be performed successfully by aligning the two available hinge points and measuring the smallest identifiable annular dimensions in the transverse plane (Fig. 1). We identified 12 patients with bicommissural non-raphe-type BAV undergoing TAVI between January 2013 and December 2017 in our high-volume institution. Our novel sizing strategy was employed prospectively in three patients-with good clinical outcomes-and evaluated retrospectively in the remainder (Table 1). No patient suffered a central major vascular complication or required new permanent pacemaker implantation. Device success occurred in all patients except one (post-procedural echocardiographic transvalvular gradient of 23 mmHg). In the retrospectively assessed cases, the novel annulus measure was concordant with the implanted THV size in 7 out of 9 procedures and, importantly, did not overestimate the annulus dimensions in any case. Furthermore, in two balloon-expandable THV cases the new measure may, in retrospect, have prompted consideration of a smaller implant size. To be noted, balloon sizing of the aortic annulus has additional value when selecting the valve size in BAV anatomy. Further prospective validation of this novel MDCT sizing technique is required.

Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.

Aims: We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)]. Methods and results: From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 ± 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation ≥moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.12; P = 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29-8.51; P < 0.001]. Conclusion: The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV.

Aortic Valve Predilatation with a Small Balloon, without Rapid Pacing, prior to Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and clinical outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using aortic valve predilatation (AVPD) with a small, nonocclusive balloon. BACKGROUND: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) under rapid pacing is generally performed in TAVR to ensure the passage and sufficient deployment of the prosthesis in the stenotic AV. BAV may cause serious complications, such as left ventricular stunning or cerebrovascular embolism. METHODS: A cohort of 50 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent transfemoral TAVR with the Edwards Sapien 3-heart valve. All patients underwent AVPD with a small, nonocclusive balloon (12 × 60 or 14 × 60 mm) without rapid pacing. Procedural data and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 81 ± 6 years and the mean logistic EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) was 13 ± 9. Crossing the AV and prosthesis implantation was successful in all cases. The postprocedural mean AV gradient was 12 ± 5 mmHg. There were no cases of aortic regurgitation ≥ grade 2. No periprocedural stroke occurred. One patient (2%) with chronic atrial fibrillation displayed a transient Wernicke aphasia occurring more than 24 hours after TAVR. Mortality was 0% at 30 days after procedure. CONCLUSION: In TAVR, AVPD with a small, nonocclusive balloon can be safely performed. By avoiding rapid pacing, this technique may be a valid alternative to traditional BAV. Whether or not the use of APVD without rapid pacing translates into less periprocedural complications needs to be assessed in future studies.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol-opioid for sedation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients: a retrospective analysis of periprocedural gas exchange and hemodynamic support.

PURPOSE: Different sedation regimens have been described for use during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (tf-TAVI) for treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) with a combination of propofol-opioid (PO) with respect to periprocedural gas exchange and hemodynamic support. METHODS: Data from a cohort of patients sedated with either DEX or PO for tf-TAVI were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained TAVI registry. Operative risk was determined from comorbidities and risk scores. Periprocedural partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) was chosen as the primary endpoint. Other differences in gas exchange, need for catecholamine therapy, the frequency of conversion to general anesthesia, and need for sedative "rescue therapy" (in DEX patients) were secondary endpoints. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used for analysis to minimize any selection bias. RESULTS: Of the 297 patients (140 PO, 157 DEX) included, the median [interquartile range] periprocedural PaCO2 values of DEX patients were significantly lower than in PO patients (40 [36-45] mmHg vs 44 [40-49] mmHg, respectively; median difference -4 mmHg; 95% confidence interval, -5 to -3 mmHg; P < 0.001). Hypercapnia (PaCO2 > 45 mmHg) was significantly less frequent in DEX patients compared with the PO group (25% vs 42%, respectively; P = 0.005). Vasopressor support was more frequent in the PO group compared with DEX (68% vs 25%, respectively; P < 0.001). Conversion to general anesthesia was not different between groups (9%, PO vs 3%, DEX; P = 0.051). Additional sedatives/opioids were required in 25 (16%) of the DEX patients. CONCLUSIONS: In sedated TAVI patients, DEX was associated with lower PaCO2 values and reduced requirements for vasopressor support, making it a promising alternative to PO for sedation during TAVI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01390675). Registered 11 July 2011.

Vascular complications after percutaneous mitral valve repair and venous access closure using suture or closure device.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different access-site closure strategies, suture or closure device (Proglide, Abbott Vascular), on vascular and bleeding complications after percutaneous mitral valve repair (MitraClip, Abbott Vascular). BACKGROUND: Considering the high-risk profile in patients receiving percutaneous mitral valve repair, complications related to the large 24 Fr access sheath and its relation to the closure technique have not been evaluated so far. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2015, 277 consecutive high-risk patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) underwent percutaneous mitral valve repair at our institution using Z-suture (n = 150) or closure device (n = 127) to close the access-site. Duplex sonography was performed in all patients. The primary endpoint was access-site related complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of bleeding complications and mortality. Access-site related VARC2 major and minor complications were comparable after closure with Z-suture or closure device (2,7% vs 3.1%, P = 0.81 and 15,3% vs 15.7%, P = 0.92). Three patients (2%) in the suture and four patients (3.1%) in the closure device group experienced unplanned endovascular intervention at the access site. Access-site related major bleeding was observed in 4 (2.7%) suture and 4 (3.1%) closure device treated patients (P = 0.81). No access site related mortality occurred. CONCLUSION: Both Z-suture and closure device use after percutaneous mitral valve repair are feasible and safe. However, there is no benefit of one strategy over the other according to VARC2 major and minor complications.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves and Failed Annuloplasty Rings.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral valve replacement and repair. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of TMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) and annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring [ViR]). METHODS: From the TMVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of mitral ViV and ViR were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.9 ± 6.8% underwent TMVR. Transseptal access and the balloon-expandable valve were used in 33.1% and 89.9%, respectively. Compared with 176 patients undergoing ViV, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 ± 17.4% vs. 55.3 ± 11.1%; p < 0.001). Overall technical and device success rates were acceptable, at 92.3% and 85.5%, respectively. However, compared with the ViV group, the ViR group had lower technical success (83.3% vs. 96.0%; p = 0.001) due to more frequent second valve implantation (11.1% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.008), and lower device success (76.4% vs. 89.2%; p = 0.009) due to more frequent reintervention (16.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.03). Mean mitral valve gradients were similar between groups (6.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.17), whereas the ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation moderate or higher (19.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.003). Furthermore, the ViR group had more frequent life-threatening bleeding (8.3% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.03), acute kidney injury (11.1% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.03), and subsequent lower procedural success (58.3% vs. 79.5%; p = 0.001). The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the ViR group compared with the ViV group (28.7% vs. 12.6%; log-rank test, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, failed annuloplasty ring was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.34 to 5.43; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The TMVR procedure provided acceptable outcomes in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses or failed annuloplasty rings, but mitral ViR was associated with higher rates of procedural complications and mid-term mortality compared with mitral ViV.