Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 71(08): 632-640
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1742755
Original Cardiovascular

Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Valve-in-Valve with a Supra-Annular Valve

Louhai Alwan
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munchen, Germany
,
Hendrik Ruge
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munchen, Germany
,
Markus Krane
2   Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States
,
Anatol Prinzing
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munchen, Germany
,
Christian Noebauer
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munchen, Germany
,
Rüdiger Lange
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munchen, Germany
,
Magdalena Erlebach 
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Centre Munich, Munchen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve [ViV]) has become an established procedure. Elevated gradients and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) have previously been reported in mixed TAVR cohorts. We analyzed our single-center experience using the third-generation self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R prosthesis, with an emphasis on the incidence and outcomes of PPM.

Methods This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from our TAVR database. Intraprocedural and intrahospital outcomes are reported.

Results Eighty-six patients underwent ViV-TAVR with the Evolut R prosthesis. Mean age was 75.5 ± 9.5 years, 64% were males. The mean log EuroScore was 21.6 ± 15.7%. The mean time between initial surgical valve implantation and ViV-TAVR was 8.8 ± 3.2 years. The mean true internal diameter of the implanted surgical valves was 20.9 ± 2.2 mm. Post-AVR, 60% had no PPM, 34% had moderate PPM, and 6% had severe PPM. After ViV-TAVR, 33% had no PPM, 29% had moderate, and 39% had severe PPM. After implantation, the mean transvalvular gradient was reduced significantly from 36.4 ± 15.2 to 15.5 ± 9.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation after ViV-TAVR. No conversion to surgery was necessary. Estimated Kaplan–Meier survival at 1 year for all patients was 87.4%. One-year survival showed no significant difference according to post-ViV PPM groups (p = 0.356).

Conclusion ViV-TAVR using a supra-annular valve resulted in low procedural and in-hospital complication rates. However, moderate or severe PPM was common, with no influence on short-term survival. PPM may not be a suitable factor to predict survival after ViV-TAVR.

Keywords

heart valve - transapical - percutaneous - TAVI - aortic valve and root - reoperation

Abbreviations

TAVR: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement


ViV-TAVR: Valve-in-Valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement


PPM: patient-prosthesis mismatch


VARC-2 criteria: Valve Academic Research Consortium- 2 criteria


BMI: body mass index


BSA: body surface area


EOA: effective orifice area


AVR: aortic valve replacement


True ID: true internal diameter


VTC: virtual valve to coronary ostium distance




Publication History

Received: 18 April 2021

Accepted: 02 January 2022

Article published online:
07 March 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K. et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Circulation 2006; 114 (05) 450-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JAH, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (01) 82-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vesely I. The evolution of bioprosthetic heart valve design and its impact on durability. Cardiovasc Pathol 2003; 12 (05) 277-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP. et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96 (02) 486-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gao G, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Starr A. Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44 (02) 384-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Erlebach M, Wottke M, Deutsch M-A. et al. Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7 (09) 1494-1500
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rodés-Cabau J, Webb JG, Cheung A. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk: acute and late outcomes of the multicenter Canadian experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (11) 1080-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Maganti M, Rao V, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Scully HE, David TE. Redo valvular surgery in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87 (02) 521-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Balsam LB, Grossi EA, Greenhouse DG. et al. Reoperative valve surgery in the elderly: predictors of risk and long-term survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90 (04) 1195-1200 , discussion 1201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kirsch M, Nakashima K, Kubota S, Houël R, Hillion ML, Loisance D. The risk of reoperative heart valve procedures in octogenarian patients. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13 (06) 991-996 , discussion 996
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khawaja MZ, Haworth P, Ghuran A. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for stenosed and regurgitant aortic valve bioprostheses CoreValve for failed bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (02) 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Piazza N, Bleiziffer S, Brockmann G. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failing surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve: from concept to clinical application and evaluation (part 1). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4 (07) 721-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eggebrecht H, Schäfer U, Treede H. et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4 (11) 1218-1227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M. et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart 2018; 104 (10) 828-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bleiziffer S, Simonato M, Webb JG. et al. Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (29) 2731-2742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P. et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60 (15) 1438-1454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J. et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 17 (06) 589-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation 2009; 119 (07) 1034-1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48 (12) 1503-1510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tchétché D, Chevalier B, Holzhey D. et al; VIVA Investigators. TAVR for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses using a self-expanding device: 1-year results from the prospective VIVA postmarket study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12 (10) 923-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 valve-in-valve registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (18) 2253-2262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation 2012; 126 (19) 2335-2344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ribeiro HB, Rodés-Cabau J, Blanke P. et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: insights from the VIVID registry. Eur Heart J 2018; 39 (08) 687-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dvir D, Leipsic J, Blanke P. et al. Coronary obstruction in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: preprocedural evaluation, device selection, protection, and treatment. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8 (01) e002079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mercanti F, Rosseel L, Neylon A. et al. Chimney stenting for coronary occlusion during TAVR: insights from the Chimney Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13 (06) 751-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Khan JM, Dvir D, Greenbaum AB. et al. Transcatheter laceration of aortic leaflets to prevent coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: concept to first-in-human. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11 (07) 677-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Johansen P, Engholt H, Tang M, Nybo RF, Rasmussen PD, Nielsen-Kudsk JE. Fracturing mechanics before valve-in-valve therapy of small aortic bioprosthetic heart valves. EuroIntervention 2017; 13 (09) e1026-e1031
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Cohen DJ. et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture to facilitate transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104 (05) 1501-1508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chhatriwalla AK, Allen KB, Saxon JT. et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture improves the hemodynamic results of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10 (07) e005216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Saxon JT, Allen KB, Cohen DJ, Hart A, Dvir D, Chhatriwalla AK. Bioprosthetic valve remodeling of trifecta surgical valves to facilitate valve-in-valve TAVR. Struct Heart 2020; 4 (02) 99-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Simonato M, Webb J, Kornowski R. et al. Transcatheter replacement of failed bioprosthetic valves: large multicenter assessment of the effect of implantation depth on hemodynamics after aortic valve-in-valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (06) e003651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL. et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (12) 1518-1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bapat VN, Zaid S, Fukuhara S. et al; EXPLANT-TAVR Investigators. Surgical explantation after TAVR failure: mid-term outcomes from the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 14 (18) 1978-1991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Jawitz OK, Gulack BC, Grau-Sepulveda MV. et al. Reoperation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13 (13) 1515-1525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar