Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) is the current standard of care for patients with failed bioprosthetic mitral valve (MV). Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (TMViV) is arising as an alternative to SMVR in high risk patients. We sought to evaluate procedural safety, early and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent transseptal TMViV (TS-TMViV), transapical TMViV (TA-TMViV), or redo-SMVR. METHODS: We identified patients with failed bioprosthetic MV who underwent TS-TMViV, TA-TMViV, or SMVR at four Italian Centers. Clinical and echocardiographic data were codified according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium definition (MVARC), except for significant valve stenosis. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and September 27, 2019 patients underwent TS-TMViV, 22 TA-TMViV, and 29 redo-SMVR. TS-TMViV and TA-TMViV patients presented higher mean age and surgical risk scores compared with SMVR group (77.8 ± 12 years, 77.3 ± 7.3 years, 67.8 ± 9.4 years, p < .001; STS PROM 8.5 ± 7.2; 8.9 ± 4.7; 3.6 ± 2.6, p < .001). TS-TMViV procedure was associated with shorter intensive care unit time and total length of stay (LOS) compared with TA-TMViV and SMVR group. There were no differences in MVARC procedural success at 30-days (74.1, 72.7, and 51.7%, p = .15) and one-year all-cause mortality between groups (14.8, 18.2, and 17.2%, p = 1.0). MV mean gradient was similar between TS-TMViV, TA-TMViV, and SMVR groups at 30 days and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: For the selected patients, TS-TMViV and TA-TMViV are to be considered a valid alternative to redo-SMVR with comparable 1-year survival. TS-TMViV is the less invasive strategy and has the advantage of shortening the LOS compared with TA-TMViV.

Transfemoral aortic valve implantation with new-generation devices: the repositionable Lotus vs. the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve.

BACKGROUND: New-generation transcatheter heart valves have been developed to reduce complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). With this study we sought to compare procedural and 30-day outcomes of the new-generation repositionable Boston Scientific Lotus (Lotus) and the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 (ES3) transcatheter heart valves. METHODS: A total of 315 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI with Lotus or ES3 included in two large Italian registries were considered for this analysis. After propensity matching, 93 matched pairs of patients were included. Outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition at discharge and 30 days. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics, except for lower mean aortic gradient and larger mean aortic annulus in the ES3-treated patients. Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined device success was high and comparable between groups (97.8 for Lotus vs. 98.9% for ES3, P = 0.09). The frequency of moderate/severe paravalvular leak was low and similar for both devices (2.2 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.10). At 30 days, both groups showed low all-cause mortality (5.4 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.10) and rates of disabling stroke (3.2 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.31). New pacemaker implantation was more common after Lotus deployment (31.7 vs. 10.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Transfemoral TAVI with both Lotus and ES3 resulted in favorable clinical and hemodynamic procedural and 30-day outcomes. Rates of significant paravalvular leak were low with both devices. The Lotus valve was associated with higher risk of pacemaker implantation.

Long-term outcomes and prosthesis performance after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results of self-expandable and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND: Data on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) long-term clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the self-expandable CoreValve (CV) and the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN XT (ES) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA) transcatheter heart valves (THV) are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare long-term clinical outcome data and hemodynamic performance of TAVR with either CV or ES. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data of 171 patients treated with TAVR for severe aortic stenosis (AS) at our center between June 2007 and December 2010, with last follow-up contact in 2016. RESULTS: Out of 171 patients treated with TAVR at our Institution, 87 received a CV and 84 an ES THV. Mean age was 81 [78-85] years, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 7.5% (4.5-13.9%). Hemodynamic success by Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) definition was 97.1%. Mean trans-prosthetic gradient remained low and stable during follow-up in both groups (at 5-year 9.2±6.4 versus 12.7±5.1 mmHg, P=0.10). Late prosthesis failure occurred in 4 cases (2.4%). Thirty-day mortality was 4.7%, and estimated survival rates by Kaplan-Meyer after 1, 5 and 8 years were 87.6%, 44.9%, and 24.5%, respectively, without difference between THV groups. Rates of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and congestive heart failure (CHF) were also similar with CV and ES at long-term follow-up. History of CHF, pre-existent severe mitral regurgitation, paravalvular leak grade ≥2+, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independent predictors of late mortality at multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of patients treated by self-expandable CV or balloon-expandable ES THV were favorable and similar throughout long-term follow-up, with a rate of prosthesis failure of less than 3%.