Valve-in-Valve TAVR: State-of-the-Art Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. James Edelman ◽  
Jaffar M. Khan ◽  
Toby Rogers ◽  
Christian Shults ◽  
Lowell F. Satler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Native Valve ◽  
Reoperative Surgery ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Structural Valve Deterioration ◽  
Valve In Valve ◽  
Coronary Obstruction

An increasing number of surgically implanted bioprostheses will require re-intervention for structural valve deterioration. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has become an alternative to reoperative surgery, currently approved for high-risk and inoperable patients. Challenges to the technique include higher rates of prosthesis–patient mismatch and coronary obstruction, compared to native valve TAVR. Herein, we review results of ViV TAVR and novel techniques to overcome the aforementioned challenges.

Direct Transcatheter Valve Deployment via Sternotomy for Complex Aortic Valve Reoperation

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-368
Author(s):  
Tom C. Nguyen ◽  
Alexander P. Nissen ◽  
Pranav Loyalka ◽  
Eyal E. Porat
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
High Risk Patient ◽  
Direct Vision ◽  
Risk Patient ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Valve In Valve

Reoperative aortic valve replacement is associated with increased morbidity. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement offers a less invasive alternative to traditional reoperation. However, cases of valve failure after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement represent a complex surgical challenge. We present a case requiring a complex reoperative aortic valve replacement due to structural valve deterioration after multiple previous valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacements. We performed removal of 3 previous valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valves, bioprosthetic leaflet excision, and intentional bioprosthetic fracture under direct vision for annular enlargement. This facilitated direct insertion of a new transcatheter aortic valve for expedient and successful management of recurrent aortic stenosis in a very high-risk patient. Creative use of leaflet excision, intentional bioprosthetic fracture, and insertion of a new transcatheter aortic valve under direct vision, proved efficient and successful in a high-risk patient with few surgical options.

scholarly journals Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (29) ◽  
pp. 2747-2755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer A Hirji ◽  
Edward D Percy ◽  
Cheryl K Zogg ◽  
Alexandra Malarczyk ◽  
Morgan T Harloff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract Aims We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. Methods and results We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. Conclusion In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Bilateral coronary obstruction in high-risk transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: When procedural strategy counts

2016 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. 672-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Fabris ◽  
Andrea Perkan ◽  
Elisabetta Rauber ◽  
Giancarlo Vitrella ◽  
Roberto Sallusti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Procedural Strategy ◽  
Valve In Valve ◽  
Valve Implantation ◽  
Coronary Obstruction

Surgical explantation of a failed transcatheter aortic valve

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Native Valve ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Structural Deterioration ◽  
Structural Valve Deterioration

With transcatheter aortic valve replacement being increasingly utilized in a younger and lower risk population, we can expect to see larger numbers of patients presenting with structural deterioration of aortic valves replaced by the transcatheter route that now require explantation and surgical replacement. Surgical aortic valve replacement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is associated with operative morbidity and mortality rates significantly higher than those seen in the setting of surgical replacement of the native valve, which had a 30-day mortality of 12–20% in recent series. Centers performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in lower risk patients with longer expected lifespans and a higher probability of late structural deterioration of the transcatheter aortic valve replacement should carefully consider their choice of valve type (balloon-expandable versus self-expanding) and patient anatomy, including annulus and root diameter, at the time of the initial valve intervention. Further, one should not forget the mechanical surgical aortic valve replacement option in younger patients with risk factors for early structural valve deterioration such as obesity, metabolic syndrome, and chronic kidney disease. The objectives of this tutorial are to describe the preoperative workup for a patient with late structural valve deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, detail the explantation approach specific to self-expanding valves, and illustrate the key decisions and techniques needed for subsequent surgical aortic valve replacement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document