Impact of Elevated Gradients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Elevated aortic valve gradients are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic valve replacement bioprostheses, but their clinical impact is uncertain. METHODS: A total of 12 122 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation-in-surgical aortic valve replacement from November 2011 to December 2019 in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transvalvular Therapeutics Registry were included. The primary outcome was a composite of 1-year all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or valve reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 1-year all-cause mortality, readmission, and change from baseline 12-question self-administered Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary Score. Due to nonlinearity observed with restricted cubic splines analysis, a Cox regression analysis with aortic valve mean gradient modeled as a spline-continuous variable (with 20 mm Hg as a cutoff) was used to study the 1-year composite outcome and mortality. RESULTS: The composite outcome occurred most frequently in patients with aortic valve mean gradient ≥30 and <10 mm Hg, as compared with those with 10 to 20 and 20 to 30 mm Hg ranges (unadjusted rates, 13.9%, 12.1%, 7.5%, and 6.5%, respectively; P=0.002). When the mean aortic valve gradient was ≥20 mm Hg, higher gradients were associated with greater risk of the 1-year composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [1.02-1.03] per mm Hg; P<0.001) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [1.00-1.03] per mm Hg; P=0.007). Whereas when the mean aortic valve gradient was <20 mm Hg, higher gradients were not significantly associated with the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99 [0.98-1.003] per mm Hg; P=0.12) but were associated with lower 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98 [0.97-0.99] per mm Hg; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between postprocedural aortic valve mean gradient after transcatheter aortic valve implantation-in-surgical aortic valve replacement and clinical outcomes is complex and nonlinear, with relatively greater adverse events occurring at low and high gradient extremes. Further study of factors mediating the relationship between postprocedural gradients and clinical outcomes, including low-flow states, is necessary.

Contemporary 1-Year Outcomes of Mitral Valve-in-Ring With Balloon-Expandable Aortic Transcatheter Valves in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Adequate valve performance after surgical mitral valve repair with an annuloplasty ring is not always sustained over time. The risk of repeat mitral valve surgery may be high in these patients. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-ring (MViR) is emerging as an alternative for high-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess contemporary outcomes of MViR using third-generation balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves. METHODS: Patients who underwent MViR and were enrolled in the STDS/ACC TVT (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry between August 2015 and December 2022 were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 820 patients underwent MViR at 236 sites, mean age was 72.2 ± 10.4 years, 50.9% were female, mean STS score was 8.2% ± 6.9%, and most (78%) were in NYHA functional class III to IV. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 47.8% ± 14.2%, mean mitral gradient was 8.9 ± 7.0 mm Hg, and 75.5% had ≥ moderate mitral regurgitation. Access was transseptal in 93.9% with 88% technical success. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 8.3%, and at 1 year, 22.4%, with a reintervention rate of 9.1%. At 1-year follow-up, 75.6% were NYHA functional class I to II, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score increased by 25.9 ± 29.1 points, mean mitral valve gradient was 8.4 ± 3.4 mm Hg, and 91.7% had ≤ mild mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: MViR with third-generation balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves is associated with a significant reduction in mitral regurgitation and improvement in symptoms at 1 year, but with elevated valvular gradients and a high reintervention rate. MViR is a reasonable alternative for high-risk patients unable undergo surgery who have appropriate anatomy for the procedure. (STS/ACC TVT Registry Mitral Module [TMVR]; NCT02245763).

Postsurgical Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

Reintervention is commonly required postsurgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) or repair due to bioprosthetic valve and annuloplasty ring degeneration. However, redo SMVR is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Postsurgical transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a safe and less-invasive alternative that has repeatedly been shown to be associated with improved survival and lower rates of complications compared with redo SMVR. Comprehensive patient evaluation and thorough procedural planning are key to successful TMVR.

Orthotopic Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement.

Mitral valve dysfunction is prevalent amongst older patients. Of those not suitable for surgical therapy, mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) can treat as large proportion of patients, many are not suitable TEER candidates. As such, orthotopic transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an important innovation but it faces significant challenges. Orthotopic TMVR requires a prosthesis with stable anchoring, adequate sealing, minimal footprint in the left ventricle and long term durability. Multidisciplinary expertise in advanced imaging, surgery, heart failure are needed for success.

Hybrid repair of left ventricle pseudoaneurysm utilizing a transapical and transseptal approach.

Mitral valve endocarditis complicated by peri-mitral annular destruction requires surgical intervention. We present a case where surgery was not an option. A 45-year-old man who developed an enlarging left ventricle pseudoaneurysm, left ventricle to left atrium fistula and red blood cell hemolysis as sequalae of mitral valve endocarditis was not a surgical candidate. Patient underwent a hybrid repair of left ventricle pseudoaneurysm via a transapical and transseptal approach. The body of pseudoaneurysm was coiled trans-apically whereas the neck of pseudoaneurysm was reached and coiled via a transseptal approach. The left ventricle to left atrium fistula was closed via an Amplatz muscular ventricle septal occluder. The pseudoaneurysm was fully obliterated, patient symptoms improved and was discharged with stable hemoglobin levels.

Aortic valve reintervention in patients with failing transcatheter aortic bioprostheses: A statewide experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement since its approval, the frequency and outcomes of aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement are poorly understood. METHODS: Valve reinterventions, either surgical transcatheter aortic valve explantation or repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, between 2012 and 2019 were queried using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database and the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry through the Michigan Statewide quality collaborative. The reintervention frequency and clinical outcomes including observed-to-expected mortality ratio using Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality were reviewed. RESULTS: Among 9694 transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients, a total of 87 patients (0.90%) received a reintervention, consisting of 34 transcatheter aortic valve explants and 53 repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures. The transcatheter aortic valve explant group demonstrated a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality. Reintervention cases increased from 0 in 2012 and 2013 to 26 in 2019. The proportion of transcatheter aortic valve explants among all reinterventions increased and was 65% in 2019. Self-expandable devices had a higher reintervention rate than balloon-expandable devices secondary to a higher transcatheter aortic valve explant frequency (0.58% [23/3957] vs 0.19% [11/5737]; P = .001), whereas repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement rates were similar (0.61% [24/3957] vs 0.51% [29/5737]; P = .51). Among patients with transcatheter aortic valve explants, contraindications to repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement included unfavorable anatomy (75%), need for other cardiac surgery (29%), other structural issues by transcatheter aortic valve device (18%), and endocarditis (12%). For transcatheter aortic valve explant and repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the 30-day mortality was 15% and 2% (P = .032) and the observed-to-expected mortality ratio was 1.8 and 0.3 (P = .018), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve reintervention remains rare but is increasing. The clinical impact of surgical device explantation was substantial, and the proportion of transcatheter aortic valve explants was significantly higher in patients with a self-expandable device.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Failed Bioprosthetic Surgical Valves and Surgical Annuloplasty Rings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Repeat surgery for failed mitral valve prostheses and repairs are fraught with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, clinicians have evolved transcatheter technology as an alternative therapy. This review serves as an update as the field has moved out of the early learning curve of treating postsurgical mitral valve failures. RECENT FINDINGS: Mitral valve-in-valve procedures have higher rates of technical success and better in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates than mitral valve-in-ring cases. The higher rates of complications, including left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, paravalvular leak, valve embolization, and need for a 2nd valve, may explain these outcomes. Mitral valve-in-ring procedures have attenuated outcomes as compared to valve-in-valve. Clinicians should be cognizant of the nuanced complexities and the potential for suboptimal outcomes in using balloon-expandable valves for mitral valve-in-ring procedures.

Real-world experience with concomitant or staged transcatheter aortic and mitral valve replacements using balloon-expandable valves.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a native valve or failed bioprosthetic valve or transcatheter heart valve (THV) and a transcatheter mitral valve replacement procedure (TMVR; valve-in-valve [mViV], valve-in-ring [mViR], and valve in mitral annulus calcification [ViMAC]) either concomitantly (same procedure) or staged (different procedures). BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of concomitant or staged TAVR and TMVR procedures are largely unknown. METHODS: Data were extracted from the STS/ACC TVT Registry™ for patients undergoing concomitant or staged TAVR and TMVR with SAPIEN XT, SAPIEN 3, or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences) THVs. Descriptive results were reported for procedural, index hospitalization, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients underwent TAVR and TMVR in concomitant (n = 135) or staged (n = 122) procedures. Device success was 82.9% and 83.9% for concomitant TAVR and TMVR procedures and 83.8% and 82.5% for staged TAVR and TMVR procedures. Significant improvements in aortic and mitral valve function remained stable through 1 year. All-cause mortality for concomitant and staged groups was 14.7% and 10.5% at 30 days, and 32.8% and 24.6% at 1 year, respectively. Stroke rate for concomitant and staged groups was 0.8% and 3.6% at 30 days and 3.9% and 5.6% at 1 year, respectively. Improvements from baseline to 1 year in NYHA class and KCCQ overall summary scores were observed for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant or staged transcatheter treatment of patients with aortic and mitral valve disease can be performed in select high-risk patients in experienced centers.