Efficacy and safety of transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement for Mitroflow bioprosthetic valve dysfunction

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 356-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor X. Mosquera ◽  
Miguel González-Barbeito ◽  
Alberto Bouzas-Mosquera ◽  
José M. Herrera-Noreña ◽  
Carlos Velasco ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. A1411
Author(s):  
Saroj Neupane ◽  
Hemindermeet Singh ◽  
Johannes Lämmer ◽  
Hussein Othman ◽  
Hiroshi Yamasaki ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. S. Barbarash ◽  
A. N. Stasev ◽  
S. G. Kokorin ◽  
N. V. Rutkovskaya ◽  
I. N. Sizova

<p><strong>Background</strong>. Patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction have a higher risk for redo procedures because of advanced age, comorbidities and redo-related technical difficulties. Thus, valve-in-valve replacement seems to be an easier and safer option for this group of patients.<br />Objective. To assess the immediate results of mitral valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.<br /><strong>Methods</strong>. 6 patients underwent mitral valve-in-valve implantation using “UniLine” prostheses at Kemerovo Research Institute for Complex Problems of Cardiovascular Diseases in 2014.<br /><strong>Results.</strong> There were no cases of in-hospital deaths and prosthesis-related complications in the group under study. Satisfactory performance of bioprostheses was confirmed by echocardiography offered to all the patients before their discharge. <br /><strong>Conclusion.</strong> Mitral valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction allows achieving satisfactory immediate results.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Pezzute Lopes ◽  
Vitor Emer Egypto Rosa ◽  
José Honório Palma ◽  
Marcelo Luiz Campos Vieira ◽  
Joao Ricardo Cordeiro Fernandes ◽  
...  

Background: Bioprosthetic heart valve has limited durability and lower long-term performance especially in rheumatic heart disease (RHD) patients that are often subject to multiple redo operations. Minimally invasive procedures, such as transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation, may offer an attractive alternative, although data is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic patients undergoing ViV procedures for severe bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.Methods: Single center, prospective study, including consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter ViV implantation in aortic, mitral and tricuspid position, from May 2015 to September 2020. RHD was defined according to clinical history, previous echocardiographic and surgical findings.Results: Among 106 patients included, 69 had rheumatic etiology and 37 were non-rheumatic. Rheumatic patients had higher incidence of female sex (73.9 vs. 43.2%, respectively; p = 0.004), atrial fibrillation (82.6 vs. 45.9%, respectively; p &lt; 0.001), and 2 or more prior surgeries (68.1 vs. 32.4%, respectively; p = 0.001). Although, device success was similar between groups (75.4 vs. 89.2% in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic, respectively; p = 0.148), there was a trend toward higher 30-day mortality rates in the rheumatic patients (21.7 vs. 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.057). Still, at median follow-up of 20.7 [5.1–30.4] months, cumulative mortality was similar between both groups (p = 0.779).Conclusion: Transcatheter ViV implantation is an acceptable alternative to redo operations in the treatment of patients with RHD and severe bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Despite similar device success rates, rheumatic patients present higher 30-day mortality rates with good mid-term clinical outcomes. Future studies with a larger number of patients and follow-up are still warranted, to firmly conclude on the role transcatheter ViV procedures in the RHD population.


Author(s):  
A. Claire Watkins ◽  
Chandan M. Devireddy ◽  
Talal Al-Atassi ◽  
Amy E. Simone ◽  
Jessica Forcillo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document