Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation treatment with the J-valve system for tricuspid bioprosthesis deterioration: a report of two cases.

Background: Patients with tricuspid bioprosthetic structural valve degeneration (SVD) often present with right ventricular enlargement and severe dysfunction, which cause a higher risk for redo cardiac surgery. In 2019, our center innovated using the J-valve system for valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation to treat tricuspid bioprosthetic SVD. The purpose of this study was to summarize the clinical effect after 1-year follow-up. Case Description: From April 2019 to October 2019, two cases of tricuspid bioprosthetic dysfunction were treated with the J-valve system. Both patients were male, aged 46 and 67 years, respectively. The preoperative evaluation showed that the risk of conventional redo open heart surgery was high. The J-valve implantation was successful in both cases. One patient had slight valve displacement when the transporter was withdrawn during the operation, and a second J-valve was implanted in an ideal position. There was no death, no delayed valve displacement, and no readmission during the follow-up period of 12 months. In both cases, there was an absence of trace tricuspid regurgitation. After 6 months of anticoagulation with warfarin, the patients were converted to long-term aspirin treatment. Conclusions: The ViV technique with J-valve is feasible and effective in treating tricuspid bioprosthetic SVD in high-risk patients, avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass and conventional thoracotomy injury.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis with "down-size" interventional valves: procedural and mid-term follow-up.

Background: Due to the influence of anatomical structure, replacing the bicuspid valve using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) would increase the risk of perivalvular leakage and conduction block, affecting the hemodynamic effect of the interventional valve. In this study, for bicuspid and tricuspid valves, we implemented different valve selection strategies to explore the safety and effectiveness of TAVR in the treatment of bicuspid aortic stenosis with "down-size" interventional valves using the VenusA-valve system. Methods: The operation was performed with the VenusA-valve via transfemoral approach. The selected valves were appropriately sized based on the results of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and the morphology of intraoperative pre-dilation balloons. For tricuspid valve cases, the VenusA valve is usually larger than the annulus diameter, whereas the "down-size" approach was adopted for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) cases. The shape of the pre-dilation balloon allowed further sizing of the annulus diameter by the degree of lumbar constriction of the balloon, aiding in intervention valve size selection, particularly in cases of BAVs. Results: A total of 65 patients underwent TAVR for aortic stenosis with VenusA-valve systems. Of these, 29 cases had a BAV and 36 cases had a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). The distribution of VenusA-valve sizes differed between TAV and BAV cases (P=0.007). Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in the average mean gradient in TAV patients from 54.7 to 12.2 mmHg (P<0.001), and in BAV patients from 61.6 to 14.3 mmHg (P<0.001). The percentage of paravalvular leakage greater than mild was 6.90% in the BAVs and 5.56% in the TAVs at procedural outcomes (P=0.955). The mean follow-up period was 22.23 months (range, 12 to 39 months). The proportion of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV decreased from 78.5% preoperatively to 11.3% at the last follow-up (P<0.001). A total of 27 patients with TAV and 19 patients with BAV underwent TTE at 1-year follow-up after operation. There was no significant contrast in the average pressure difference between TAVs and BAVs at 1-year follow-up (11.9 vs. 14.3 mmHg, P=0.18). Conclusions: The VenusA-valve for TAVR produced positive clinical outcomes and valve functionality in both BAVs and TAVs. In the case of BAVs, selecting a smaller interventional valve size was deemed viable.

Innovative use of a self-expanding valve for valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement: experience from a four-year single-center study.

Background: Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) is a minimally invasive option for patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve failure. Since January 2019, our center has been using a new innovative option, J-Valve, to treat patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve failure who were at high risk for open heart surgery. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of J-Valve and report the results from the four-year follow-up period of the innovative application of the transcatheter valve. Methods: Patients who underwent the ViV-TMVR procedure between January 2019 and September 2022 in our center were included in the study. J-Valve™ system (JC Medical Inc., Suzhou, China) with three U-shape grippers was used for ViV-TMVR via transapical approach. Data on survival, complications, transthoracic echocardiographic results, New York Heart Association functional class in heart failure, and patient-reported health-related quality of life according to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) were collected during the four-year follow up. Results: Thirty-three patients (mean age 70.1 ± 1.1 years, 13 men) were included and received ViV-TMVR. The surgery success rate was 97%: only one patient was converted to open-heart surgery due to intraoperative valve embolization to the left ventricle. During the first 30 days all-cause mortality was 0%, risk of stroke 2.5% and risk of mild paravalvular leak 15.2%; mitral valve hemodynamics improved (179.7 ± 8.9 at 30 days vs. 269 ± 49 cm/s at baseline, p < 0.0001). Median time from operation to discharge was six days, and there were no readmissions within 30 days from operation. The median and maximum follow-up durations were 28 and 47 months, respectively; during the entire follow-up, all-cause mortality was 6.1%, and the risk of cerebral infarction 6.1%. Cox regression analysis did not identify any variables significantly associated with survival. The New York Heart Association functional class and the KCCQ-12 score improved significantly compared with their preoperative values. Conclusion: The use of J-Valve for ViV-TMVR is safe and effective with a high success rate, low mortality and very few associated complications, representing an alternative surgical strategy for the elderly, high-risk patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve failure.

Transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthetic valve using the J-valve system with locator device: early and mid-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the approval of the Sapien valve in 2020, there were no commercially available short-frame valves for transapical mitral valve-in-valve (MVIV) implantation. In January 2019, we first attempted the reverse mounted J-valve for transapical MVIV implantation with good clinical results. The present study aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of transapical MVIV implantation with the J-valve reversely mounted on the delivery system. METHODS: Patients who underwent transapical MVIV implantation using the J-valve were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2020 with a 1-year follow-up. Before the procedure, computed tomography (CT) angiography data were analyzed to determine the inner diameter, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), and coaxial angel. An oversize rate of 5-10% was used to select the J-valve depending on the scanned inner diameter of the original mitral bioprosthesis. During the procedure, the three U-shape graspers were one-to-one buckled with the three tissue valve struts with the assist of echo and fluoroscopy. The implant depth into the left atrium was a 0-20% part of the J-valve, and the valve was then released under rapid pacing. Post-balloon dilatation was used when needed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (mean age 70.05±11.19 years), with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.01%±4.20%, were included. By transesophageal echocardiography, we found that the mean transvalvular gradient was 6.21±2.63 mmHg. The mean follow-up time was 20.31±7.23 months, and the survival rate was 94.74% at the last follow-up. The transvalvular gradient decreased from 15.06±3.00 mmHg at basal to 7.13±2.28 mmHg at the 1-year follow-up (P<0.001). The left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) increased from 60.31%±7.30% to 59.94%±7.72% at the 1-year follow-up (P=0.863). Thirteen (81.25%) patients had no or trace paravalvular leak (PVL), two (12.50%) patients had minor PVL, one (6.25%) patient had moderate PVL, and there were no cases of major regurgitation at the 1-year transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) examination results. CONCLUSIONS: The J-valve reversely mounted on the delivery system can be used for transapical MVIV implantation with less operative morbidity and favourable outcomes.

New Internet-Based Warfarin Anticoagulation Management Approach After Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement: Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical heart valve replacement (MHVR) is an effective method for the treatment of severe heart valve disease; however, it subjects patient to lifelong warfarin therapy after MHVR with the attendant risk of bleeding and thrombosis. Whether internet-based warfarin management reduces complications and improves patient quality of life remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of internet-based warfarin management and the conventional approach in patients who received MHVR in order to provide evidence regarding alternative strategies for long-term anticoagulation. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial with a 1-year follow-up. Patients who needed long-term warfarin anticoagulation after MHVR were enrolled and then randomly divided into conventional and internet-based management groups. The percentage of time in the therapeutic range (TTR) was used as the primary outcome, while bleeding, thrombosis, and other events were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 721 patients were enrolled. The baseline characteristics did not reach statistical differences between the 2 groups, suggesting the random assignment was successful. As a result, the internet-based group showed a significantly higher TTR (mean 0.53, SD 0.24 vs mean 0.46, SD 0.21; P<.001) and fraction of time in the therapeutic range (mean 0.48, SD 0.22 vs mean 0.42, SD 0.19; P<.001) than did those in the conventional group. Furthermore, as expected, the anticoagulation complications, including the bleeding and embolic events had a lower frequency in the internet-based group than in the conventional group (6.94% vs 12.74%; P=.01). Logistic regression showed that internet-based management increased the TTR by 7% (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.09; P<.001) and reduced the bleeding and embolic risk by 6% (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.96; P=.01). Moreover, low TTR was found to be a risk factor for bleeding and embolic events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91; P=.005). CONCLUSIONS: The internet-based warfarin management is superior to the conventional method, as it can reduce the anticoagulation complications in patients who receive long-term warfarin anticoagulation after MHVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800016204; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27518. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032949.