eISSN: 1897-4295
ISSN: 1734-9338
Advances in Interventional Cardiology/Postępy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
4/2018
vol. 14
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
Short communication

Valve-in-valve treatment of dysfunctional aortic bioprostheses – single-centre experience

Piotr Scisło, Kajetan Grodecki, Dana Bińczak, Janusz Kochman, Radosław Wilimski, Zenon Huczek

Adv Interv Cardiol 2018; 14, 4 (54): 425–428
Online publish date: 2018/12/11
Article file
- valve-in-valve.pdf  [0.75 MB]
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
 

Introduction

Modern valvular bioprostheses show good durability, but there are several mechanisms that adversely affect their functionality. Besides dysfunction due to endocarditis (1–6%) or prosthetic valve thrombosis (up to 1%), structural valve degeneration (SVD) is the major concern [1]. Structural valve degeneration is defined as deterioration of the valve’s leaflets/structures resulting in thickening, calcification, tearing, or disruption of the prosthetic valve materials with or without hemodynamic dysfunction [2]. It may occur early after implantation, but typically starts approximately 8 years after valve replacement, and its prevalence rates rapidly increase 10 years after the procedure [3, 4]. The frequency of SVD is notably time-dependant: it ranges from 5–10% after 10 years, up to 36–51% after 20 years [5]. The growing number of patients requiring re-intervention due to bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and high periprocedural mortality associated with reoperation justifies the need for less invasive procedures [6]. Thus, transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is emerging as a promising treatment option [7, 8]. The transcatheter approach has been successfully attempted also in dysfunctional mitral bioprostheses, but the lack of dedicated mitral devices still limits its application mainly to patients with failed aortic bioprostheses [9]. In current guidelines, ViV-TAVI is considered as a therapeutic option for severely symptomatic patients with aortic bioprosthesis dysfunction and assessed by the Heart Team to be at high or prohibitive risk of reoperation, in whom improvement in hemodynamic is anticipated (Class IIa, LOF: B) [10].

Aim

This paper presents our single-center experience in ViV-TAVI for treatment of patients with dysfunctional bioprostheses after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Material and methods

From a total of 311 transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) at our institution, we selected 8 cases treated due to SVD of a surgically implanted aortic bioprosthesis (either stented type or homograft). The baseline clinical characteristics of the ViV-TAVI group are shown in Table I. All patients were referred for ViV-TAVI by the local Heart Team due to high risk of reoperation.
Sizing of transcatheter heart valves (THV) was based on surgical valve label information, transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and/or computed tomography (CT) imaging supported with the Valve in Valve app (version 2.0, UBQO limited).
ViV-TAVI procedures were performed under general anaesthesia through transfemoral (n = 7) or carotid (n = 1) access. All valves were implanted without predilatation. Only patient 1, who was treated for pure aortic regurgitation in homograft, required post-dilatation following implantation of the second Medtronic CoreValve due to incorrect positioning of the first THV.
No post-dilatation was used in the remaining cases, where proper device positioning was achieved and no significant paravalvular leaks were observed. Post-dilatation with a non-compliant balloon may be used for bioprosthetic valve fracturing to facilitate ViV-TAVI, but there was no such case in out practice (see Discussion).
All echocardiographic data were acquired with Philips iE33/Epiq7C systems with s5-1/x5-1/x7-2t/x8-2t probes and stored on Philips Xcelera PACS. The clinical and echocardiographic data were collected at three time points: initial evaluation (baseline) before ViV-TAVI, 30-day follow-up and up to 2-year follow-up (long-term follow-up). The detailed echocardiographic evaluations were made in all cases with calculation of left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF; Simpson method), aortic valve area (AVA) and indexed AVA (iAVA) before the procedure. After ViV-TAVI aortic effective orifice area (AEOA) and indexed aortic effective orifice area (iAEOA) were calculated. All area calculations were based on continuity equitation. Local bioethical committee gave permission for the procedures.

Results

The ViV-TAVI population is characterized by a lower mean age than the classical aortic stenosis TAVI (AS-TAVI) cohort (68.7 ±7.5 years, 95% CI: 62.5–75 vs. 78.5 ±7.2, 95% CI: 77.5–79.3, p < 0.05). Mean follow-up time was 30.7 ±18.9 (7.3–64) months. Due to availability and personal experience of the implanters only self-expandable aortic bioprostheses were used.
In AS-TAVI compared to VIV-TAVI, both AEOA and iAEOA differed significantly at the 30-day follow-up in all valve sizes: for 23 mm (AVA vs. AEOA 0.8 ±0.12 vs. 1.76 ±0.07; p < 0.001; iAVA vs. iAEOA 0.45 ±0.05 vs. 1.02 ±0.06; p < 0.001); for 26 mm (AVA vs. AEOA 1.32 vs. 1.76; iAVA vs. iAEOA 0.62 vs. 1.05); for 29 mm – only homograft patients – (AVA vs. AEOA 1.15 ±0.21 vs. 1.88 ±0.38; p < 0.013; iAVA vs. iAEOA 0.66 ±0.9 vs. 1.03 ±0.09; p < 0.04) (Figure 1).
In all cases, except for patient 2, AVA successfully increased above expected minimal values (AEOA > 1.2 cm2) at 30 days [11]. The location of the bioprosthesis frame (Medtronic Hancock II) in this case was atypical, positioned at 45 from the medial aortic line, which resulted in suboptimal THV deployment. ViV-TAVI in this case was complicated by the early patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), but patient 2 already had a history of two redo-SAVRs and aortic annuloplasty. PPM (iAEOA ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2) at 30 days after ViV-TAVI was also observed in patient 3 (iAEOApt2 = 0.75 cm2/m2). High body surface area (BSA) was the major causative factor in this patient, despite the relatively large AEOA.
Similarly, high values of BSA and body mass index (BMI) in patient 6 resulted in low iAEOA (iAEOApt6 = 0.64 cm2/m2), suggesting occurrence of severe PPM (iAEOA ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2). However, AEOA was acceptable (AEOApt6 = 1.4 cm2) and further body weight reduction allowed the patient’s iAEOA to be increased in the long-term follow-up.
Overall, no decrease of AEOA and iAEOA were observed in long-term follow-up. Moreover, no paravalvular leaks or intra-valvular aortic regurgitations were observed at either 30-day or later follow-up. A tendency of increasing LVEF and reduction of NYHA functional class were observed after the procedure. According to the VARC-2 composite endpoints (let alone PPM in device success definition), all procedures can be classified as successful, efficient and safe both at 30 days and 90 days [12].
In patient 1, after 64 months, severe intra-valvular regurgitation of THV (leaflet rupture) was observed. Because of end-stage chronic renal failure, co-morbid diseases and general fragility, conservative treatment was chosen. The patient died due to multi-organ failure. Patient 8 died due to small cell carcinoma 9 months after ViV-TAVI. Remaining patients achieved time-related valve safety according to the VARC-2 criteria.

Discussion

The present study shows that ViV-TAVI is a safe and effective mode of treatment in high-risk patients with failed surgical bioprostheses – including in long-term observation [10].
The early results of ViV-TAVI procedures are highly dependent on the prosthesis positioning. Device malposition may lead to dysfunction of the new prosthesis or coronary ostia obstruction. The procedure is less demanding in failed stented bioprostheses due to visible frame struts or radiological markers, which facilitate precise and safe implantation. In contrast, the stentless surgical valves or homografts have no radiological reference points and identification of the landing zone might be troublesome. However, in relation to the hemodynamic effects, stentless design of surgical bioprostheses allows for better expansion of THV within the surgical valve. It translates into higher values of effective orifice area and lower risk of PPM compared to stented bioprostheses – especially when dealing with small failed valves.
The supra-annular attachment of leaflets in the self-expandable aortic bioprostheses we used during ViV-TAVI might potentially increase long-term durability of THV and provide better iAEOA with lower incidence of PPM. Additionally, the second generation of self-expanding THV can be recaptured and repositioned in case of malpositioning. It significantly improves the ViV-TAVI procedure and limits the necessity for the second THV in comparison to the first generation (patient 1).
The ViV-TAVI procedure for failed stented surgical valves raises other challenges, particularly concerning the optimization of final AEOA. Large registries reported incidence of intra-procedural failures up to 6.9%, but there were none in our material [13].
The results of our work suggest that ViV-TAVI is a safe procedure – no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 30-day follow-up. Long-term outcomes are similar to those observed in other studies [9, 14]. After the procedure, aortic valvular function improved in relation to AEOA. No paravalvular leaks larger than mild and no intra-valvular regurgitations were observed up to 2 years of follow-up [14]. In comparison to the larger studies the frequency of PPM in our cohort is lower [9]. It must be noted that fracturing of the failed surgical bioprostheses with a non-compliant balloon catheter should be currently considered as an option to avoid PPM in some small stented bioprostheses [15].

Conclusions

The ViV-TAVI procedure seems to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with SVD of surgically implanted bioprostheses.

Conflict of interest

Zenon Huczek – proctoring and consulting fees from Medtronic. Others authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 3075-123.
2. Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation 2018; 137: 388-99.
3. Foroutan F, Guyatt GH, O’Brien K, et al. Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies. BMJ 2016; 354: i5065.
4. Wang M, Furnary AP, Li HF, Grunkemeier GL. Bioprosthetic aortic valve durability: a meta-regression of published studies. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104: 1080-7.
5. Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Dagenais F, et al. Long-term outcomes following surgical aortic bioprosthesis implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 1401-12.
6. 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: 1195-200.
7. Gąsior T, Huczek Z, Jagielak D, Wojakowski W. Aortic valve-in-valve procedures for treatment of failing surgically implanted bioprosthesis. Cor Vasa 2017; 59: e35-41.
8. Huczek Z, Kochman J, Scisło P, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in a patient with severe aortic insufficiency of aortic valve homograft. Kardiol Pol 2013; 71: 1325.
9. 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: 2253-62.
10. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines 2017.
11. Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound. A report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s guidelines and standards committee and the task force on prosthetic valves, developed in conjunction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009; 22: 975-1014.
12. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux 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; 33: 1438-54.
13. Dvir D, Barbanti M, Tan J, Webb JG. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for patients with degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valves. Curr Probl Cardiol 2014; 39: 7-27.
14. 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: pii: e003651.
15. Nielsen-Kudsk JE, Andersen A, Therkelsen CJ, et al. High-pressure balloon fracturing of small dysfunctional Mitroflow bioprostheses facilitates transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. EuroIntervention 2017; 13: e1020-5.
Copyright: © 2018 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe