scholarly journals TCT-698 Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation inside Stented vs. Stentless Bioprostheses: Insights from the Global Valve-in-Valve Registry

2014 ◽  
Vol 64 (11) ◽  
pp. B205
Author(s):  
Matheus S. Santos ◽  
John Webb ◽  
Ran Kornowski ◽  
Sabine Bleiziffer ◽  
David Hildick-Smith ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. S174
Author(s):  
E. Le Roux ◽  
E. Dumont ◽  
D. Kalavrouziotis ◽  
D. Doyle ◽  
J. Paradis ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Guglielmo Stefanelli ◽  
Fabrizio Pirro ◽  
Vincenzo Smorto ◽  
Emilio Chiurlia ◽  
Luca Weltert

Reoperations for deteriorated stentless bioprostheses are quite challenging procedures. Calcification of the aortic annulus and of the subcoronary root makes often impossible the removal of the failed valve, living a complex Bentall operation or a high-risk transcatheter aortic valve implantation valve-in-valve procedure as the only options, particularly in cases of small-size prostheses. The Perceval sutureless prosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) can be a valid alternative for failed stentless valve replacement. We report our experience with 3 complex cases of degenerated Sorin Pericarbon Freedom prosthesis treated successfully by means of Perceval sutureless implantation and demonstrating the reproducibility and the safety of this surgical approach.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 861-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenon Huczek ◽  
Kajetan Grodecki ◽  
Piotr Scisło ◽  
Krzysztof Wilczek ◽  
Dariusz Jagielak ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. 01-05
Author(s):  
Marco Angelillis

Transcatheter valve in valve (ViV) implantation actually represents a valid alternative to surgical reinterventions in patients with previous surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). In patients less than 80 years old, it is crucial to correctly position the new valve leaving a feasible and easy access to coronary ostia, both for future percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than for a future possible TAVinTAV procedure. We report a 71 year old man with prior AVR presented with structural valve deterioration (SVD) leading to severe aortic stenosis. In order to guarantee comfortable coronary access we aligned, the commissures of the new percutaneous valve with the ones of the surgical bioprothesis by reconstructing the headframes of the surgical bioprosthesis with computer tomography (CT) and fluoro-CT.


Author(s):  
Matjaz Bunc ◽  
Miha Cercek ◽  
Tomaz Podlesnikar ◽  
Simon Terseglav ◽  
Klemen Steblovnik

Abstract Background Failure of a small surgical aortic bioprosthesis represents a challenging clinical scenario with valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) often resulting in patient-prosthesis mismatch. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) performed as a part of the ViV TAVI has recently emerged as an alternative approach with certain types of surgical bioprostheses. Case summary An 81-year-old woman with a history of three surgical aortic valve procedures presented with heart failure. Aortic bioprosthesis degeneration with severe stenosis and moderate regurgitation was found. The patient was deemed a high-risk surgical candidate and the heart team decided that ViV TAVI was the preferred treatment option. Due to the very small 19 mm stented surgical aortic bioprosthesis Mitroflow 19 mm (Sorin Group, Italy) we decided to perform BVF as a part of ViV TAVI to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Since this was the first BVF procedure in our centre, an ex vivo BVF of the same kind of bioprosthetic valve was performed first. Subsequently, successful BVF with implantation of Evolut R 23 mm (Medtronic, USA) self-expandable transcatheter valve was performed. Excellent haemodynamic result was achieved and no periprocedural complications were present. The patient had an immediate major improvement in clinical status and remains asymptomatic after 6 months. Discussion Bioprosthetic valve fracture together with ViV TAVI is a safe and effective emerging technique for treatment of small surgical aortic bioprosthesis failure. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows marked oversizing of implanted self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves, leading to excellent haemodynamic and clinical results. An ex vivo BVF can serve as an important preparatory step when introducing the new method.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Igor Vendramin ◽  
Andrea Lechiancole ◽  
Daniela Piani ◽  
Gaetano Nucifora ◽  
Giovanni Benedetti ◽  
...  

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document