Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have not been extensively studied in valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared outcomes of supra-annular SE and BE THVs used for ViV-TAVR through a retrospective analysis of institutional data (2013 to 2023) including all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (TAVR in previous surgical aortic valve replacement). Unmatched and propensity-matched (1:1) comparisons of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were undertaken in SE and BE THVs along with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A total of 315 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR were included, of whom 73% received an SE THV. Median age was 77 years, and women comprised 42.5% of the population. Propensity-score matching (1:1) yielded 81 matched pairs. Implanted aortic valve size was comparable in the groups (23 mm [23 to 26] vs 23 mm [23 to 26], p = 0.457). At 30 days after ViV-TAVR, the SE group had a lower mean aortic valve gradient (14 mm Hg [11 to 18] vs 17.5 mm Hg [13 to 25], p = 0.007). A greater number of patients with BE THV had severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (16% vs 6.2%, p = 0.04). At 1-year follow-up, the SE THV group had a lower aortic valve gradient (14.0 mm Hg [9.6 to 19] vs 17 mm Hg [13 to 25], p = 0.04) than that of the BE THV group; 30-day mortality was 2.7%, whereas 1-year mortality was 7.5% and comparable in the groups. Survival and stroke incidence were similar in the groups up to 5 years. In conclusion, SE and BE THVs had comparable survival after ViV-TAVR. The higher residual aortic valve gradients in BE THVs are likely due to valve design and warrant long-term evaluation for potential structural valve degeneration.

Failure of Surgical Aortic Valve Prostheses: An Analysis of Heart Team Decisions and Postoperative Outcomes.

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

Successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a failing HAART 300 aortic valve annuloplasty ring: A case report.

Transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved from a complex procedure meant only for patients at prohibitive risk for surgery to a commonly performed procedure across a wide variety of clinical scenarios including the treatment of failed aortic valve bioprosthesis. Annuloplasty rings in the aortic position such as HAART 300 (Biostable Science and Engineering) have been introduced in the management of native aortic regurgitation. Percutaneous management of failed bioprosthesis rings in the aortic position has not been widely described. We present a case of a 69-year-old man with recurrent aortic regurgitation successfully treated with TAVR using a SAPIEN 3 valve within a HAART 300 ring.

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.

Aortic Regurgitation, Time to Aortic Valve Reintervention, and Mortality in Degenerated Trifecta Versus Non-Trifecta Bioprosthesis.

On July 31, 2023, the Trifecta valve was withdrawn from the market after concerns regarding early (≤5 years) structural valve deterioration (SVD), mainly as aortic regurgitation (AR). Our aim was to determine the timing, mechanism, and impact of bioprosthetic SVD in patients who underwent redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) with either redo-SAVR or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Trifecta versus other bioprosthetic valves. Patients who underwent redo-AVR for SVD at our institution were categorized into 2 groups based on the valve type: Trifecta versus non-Trifecta. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare mortality. A total of 171 patients were included; 58 (34%) had previous SAVR with a Trifecta valve and 113 (66%) with non-Trifecta valve. A total of 103 patients (60%) underwent valve-in-valve TAVR and 68 redo-SAVR (40%). The age, gender, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between Trifecta and non-Trifecta groups. In patients with bioprosthetic valves requiring redo-AVR, Trifecta valves had an earlier onset of greater than moderate AR (4.5 vs 11.9 years, p <0.001) and earlier time to redo-AVR (5.5 vs 12 years, p <0.001). AR was more common as the mechanism of SVD in Trifecta versus non-Trifecta valves (55.2% vs 30.1%, p = 0.006). All-cause adjusted mortality from index SAVR was higher in the Trifecta than in non-Trifecta group (hazard ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 11.5, p = 0.007). In conclusion, compared with non-Trifecta valves, Trifecta valves exhibit early SVD primarily as AR and progress rapidly to significant SVD requiring redo-AVR. Mortality is significantly higher with Trifecta than in non-Trifecta valves, potentially impacting the results of SAVR versus TAVR studies.

Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Structural valve degeneration is increasingly seen given the higher rates of bioprosthetic heart valve use for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is an attractive alternate for patients who are otherwise at high risk for reoperative surgery. We compared patients who underwent VIV-TAVR and native valve TAVR through a retrospective analysis of our institutional transcatheter valve therapy (TVT) database from 2013 to 2022. Patients who underwent either a native valve TAVR or VIV-TAVR were included. VIV-TAVR was defined as TAVR in patients who underwent a previous surgical aortic valve replacement. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to obtain survival estimates. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for the multivariable analysis of mortality. A total of 3,532 patients underwent TAVR, of whom 198 (5.6%) underwent VIV-TAVR. Patients in the VIV-TAVR cohort were younger than patients who underwent native valve TAVR (79.5 vs 84 years, p <0.001), with comparable number of women and a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (6.28 vs 4.46, p <0.001). The VIV-TAVR cohort had a higher incidence of major vascular complications (2.5% vs 0.8%, p = 0.008) but lower incidence of permanent pacemaker placement (2.5% vs 8.1%, p = 0.004). The incidence of stroke was comparable between the groups (VIV-TAVR 2.5% vs native TAVR 2.4%, p = 0.911). The 30-day readmission rates (VIV-TAVR 7.1% vs native TAVR 9%, p = 0.348), as well as in-hospital (VIV-TAVR 2% vs native TAVR 1.4%, p = 0.46), and overall (VIV-TAVR 26.3% vs native TAVR 30.8%, p = 0.18) mortality at a follow-up of 1.8 years (0.83 to 3.5) were comparable between the groups. The survival estimates were also comparable between the groups (log-rank p = 0.27). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, VIV-TAVR was associated with decreased hazards of death (hazard ratio 0.68 [0.5 to 0.9], p = 0.02). In conclusion, VIV-TAVR is a feasible and safe strategy for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. There may be potentially higher short-term morbidity with VIV-TAVR, with no overt impact on survival.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement.

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March 2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n = 57), ViV-TAVR (n = 31) and redo-sutureless (n = 25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p = 0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Severe aortic insufficiency-induced cardiogenic shock treated with left atrial VA-ECMO and emergent valve-in-valve TAVR.

Conventional venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) places a functional afterload burden on the left ventricle. In the setting of acute severe aortic insufficiency-induced cardiogenic shock, the utility of VA-ECMO in combination with a failing valve may result in catastrophic haemodynamic consequences. This challenge is compounded when the culprit is a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve. We present a case of severe rapid-onset bioprosthetic aortic insufficiency-induced cardiogenic shock successfully resuscitated with left atrial VA-ECMO promptly followed by emergent percutaneous valve-in-valve transaortic valve replacement. We discuss the logistics, implications, and associated haemodynamic manifestations in utilizing this strategy for such disease processes.

Redo-TAVR: Essential Concepts, Updated Data and Current Gaps in Evidence.

Within the last two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the treatment strategy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), representing a less invasive alternative to traditional open-chest surgery. With time, advances in device features, imaging planning, and implantation techniques have contributed to an improvement in safety as well as a reduction in procedural complications. This has led to the expansion of TAVR to lower-risk patients, where TAVR has shown favorable outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As TAVR expands to younger and lower-risk patients with longer life expectancies, the need for reintervention for failing transcatheter heart valves is expected to increase. Redo-TAVR has gained increasing relevance in the lifetime management of AS as one of the treatment strategies available for structural valve dysfunction (SVD). However, some issues are associated with this approach, including coronary re-access and the risk of coronary obstruction. In this review, we provide essential concepts to properly select candidates for Redo-TAVR, updated data on clinical outcomes and complication rates, and current gaps in evidence.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?

INTRODUCTION: Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines. AREAS COVERED: This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient. EXPERT OPINION: With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial. METHODS: A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%). CONCLUSION: Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Use of a sutureless aortic valve in reoperative aortic valve replacement.

Objectives: Management of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves remains a challenge. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has limited utility in the presence of small annuli/prosthetic valves. Sutureless valves may offer an advantage over traditional redo AVR by maximizing effective orifice area due to their unique design as well as ease of implant. Methods: Twenty-two patients undergoing redo AVR received a sutureless valve in our institution over the past 5 years. All patients were determined to be poor candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter AVR due to a combination of small annulus size, low coronary heights, and/or underlying valve characteristics (ie, mechanical valves). Results: Median time from implant to redo AVR was 8 years. One patient died within 30 days. In the 13 patients who had a 21 mm or smaller valve explanted, 5 small, 7 medium, and 1 large Perceval valves were implanted (all with larger internal diameters than the explanted valve). The average postoperative gradient of the cohort valves was 14.8 mm Hg compared with 38.8 mm Hg preoperatively. Conclusions: In addition to their ease of use and rapid deployment, sutureless bioprosthetic aortic valves offer significant physiological advantages in patients with degenerated prosthetic aortic valves and small anatomical annuli. It can also simplify the surgical approach to redo AVR following a Bentall procedure. If long-term durability is confirmed, sutureless valves should be considered in a broader population of patients for both redo and primary aortic valve replacement surgery.

Evolving Indications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to Surgical Valve Replacement: A Review of the Current Literature.

Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) are categorized into high risk, intermediate risk, and low risk. The identification of risk status is done using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score. Various factors are considered such as clinical symptoms, ejection fraction, age, left ventricle measurements, severity of AS, associated comorbid factors, and any other associated cardiac diseases. Surgery is still a standard practice in many countries. However, it has its own complications, especially in high-risk patients. Transcatheter intervention is getting precipitous recognition as an alternative mode of treatment in selected cases to mitigate complication rates and improve quality of life. In this article, transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement are compared in patients with different surgical risks. The impact of the cost of the procedure and quality of life are of paramount importance in choosing the type of intervention. Structural valve degeneration is an independent risk factor affecting patient outcomes. Modifications in valve designs are being constantly implemented as well. The standard analytical methods are in accordance with randomized clinical trials to determine the efficacy and outcome of procedures. Primary and secondary endpoints were considered to evaluate the data. The results were tabulated to derive statistical significance of the studies. In high-risk surgical patients, transcatheter intervention has been proven as the procedure of choice for valve replacement. However, intermediate-risk and low-risk categories need further studies.

Octogenarians needing reoperative aortic valve surgery-Does one size fit all?

Early and midterm outcomes, rather than long-term outcomes, are perhaps more relevant in octogenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or redo-surgical aortic valve replacement. Considering that early and midterm outcomes are similar with both the interventions, TAVR appears to be an attractive option in these patients. However, decision-making should consider other factors like presence of porcelain aorta, or severe primary mitral regurgitation among others that may influence the strategy to be adopted. The philosophy of shared decision making, and heart team consultation is, therefore, ever most relevant in these high-risk and vulnerable groups of patients. The recommendations rather than being universal must be individualized based on the type of previous surgery carried out, need for isolated AVR or concomitant surgery, co-morbid conditions, available expertise, and patient choice.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: Technical insights from a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) can result in high residual gradients that are associated with increased mortality. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) has been shown to improve residual gradients following VIV TAVR; however, factors influencing the results of BVF have not been studied. METHODS: BVF was performed in 75 patients at 21 centers. Hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed to identify variables that were associated with lower final transvalvular gradient. RESULTS: Surgical valves with a median true internal diameter of 18.5 mm (interquartile range, 17.0-20.5 mm) were treated with VIV TAVR in conjunction with BVF using balloon-expandable (n = 43) or self-expanding (n = 32) transcatheter heart valves with a median size of 23 mm (interquartile range, 23-23 mm). There were no aortic root disruptions, coronary occlusions, or new pacemakers; in-hospital or 30-day mortality was 2.6% (2 out of 75). Final mean transvalvular gradient was 9.2 ± 6.3 mm Hg, but was significantly lower when BVF was performed after VIV TAVR compared with BVF first (8.1 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 16.9 ± 10.1 mm Hg; P < .001). After adjusting for timing of BVF (ie, before or after VIV TAVR), transcatheter heart valve size/type, surgical valve mode of failure, true internal diameter, and baseline gradient and BVF balloon size, performing BVF after VIV TAVR (P < .001) and using a larger BVF balloon (P = .038) were the only independent predictors of lower final mean gradient. CONCLUSIONS: BVF can be performed safely and results in reduced residual transvalvular gradients. Performing BVF after VIV TAVR and using larger balloon appears to achieve the best hemodynamic results.