Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Perceval Bioprosthesis: Clinical and Technical Aspects in 32 Cases.
aortic bioprosthesis degeneration
aortic valve replacement
sutureless aortic valve
transcatheter aortic valve
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Sep 2023
28 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
31
08
2023
revised:
22
09
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
14
10
2023
pubmed:
14
10
2023
entrez:
14
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sutureless aortic bioprostheses are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross-clamp time and facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. As the use of sutureless valves has increased over the past decade, we begin to encounter their degeneration. We describe clinical outcomes and technical aspects in patients with degenerated sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). Between March 2011 and March 2023, 1310 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Severe bioprosthesis degeneration treated with VIV-TAVR occurred in 32 patients with a mean of 6.4 ± 1.9 years (range: 2-10 years) after first implantation. Mean EuroSCORE II was 9.5 ± 6.4% (range: 1.9-35.1%). Thirty of thirty-two (94%) VIV-TAVR were performed via transfemoral and two (6%) via transapical approach. Vascular complications occurred in two patients (6%), and mean hospital stay was 4.6 ± 2.4 days. At mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 15.2 months (range: 1-50 months), survival was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 18.7 ± 5.3 mmHg. VIV-TAVR is a useful option for degenerated Perceval and appears safe and effective. This procedure is associated with good clinical results and excellent hemodynamic performance in our largest single-center experience.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sutureless aortic bioprostheses are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross-clamp time and facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. As the use of sutureless valves has increased over the past decade, we begin to encounter their degeneration. We describe clinical outcomes and technical aspects in patients with degenerated sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR).
METHODS
METHODS
Between March 2011 and March 2023, 1310 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Severe bioprosthesis degeneration treated with VIV-TAVR occurred in 32 patients with a mean of 6.4 ± 1.9 years (range: 2-10 years) after first implantation. Mean EuroSCORE II was 9.5 ± 6.4% (range: 1.9-35.1%).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty of thirty-two (94%) VIV-TAVR were performed via transfemoral and two (6%) via transapical approach. Vascular complications occurred in two patients (6%), and mean hospital stay was 4.6 ± 2.4 days. At mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 15.2 months (range: 1-50 months), survival was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 18.7 ± 5.3 mmHg.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
VIV-TAVR is a useful option for degenerated Perceval and appears safe and effective. This procedure is associated with good clinical results and excellent hemodynamic performance in our largest single-center experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37834910
pii: jcm12196265
doi: 10.3390/jcm12196265
pmc: PMC10573422
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Jul;106(1):121-128
pubmed: 29408354
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Jan;49(1):234-41
pubmed: 25750010
JAMA. 2014 Jul;312(2):162-70
pubmed: 25005653
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012 Oct;42(4):S1-44
pubmed: 22922698
Interv Cardiol. 2019 Nov 18;14(3):147-151
pubmed: 31867060
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022 Jul;40S:148-153
pubmed: 34412989
CJC Open. 2022 Feb 13;4(6):577-580
pubmed: 35734516
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;99(4):1239-47
pubmed: 25662439
EuroIntervention. 2021 Oct 20;17(9):709-719
pubmed: 34665140
Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2023 Jun 1;36(6):
pubmed: 37307090
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Jan;137(1):82-90
pubmed: 19154908
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Sep;10(5):564-570
pubmed: 34733685
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Jun;151(6):1617-1626.e4
pubmed: 26936009
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2023 Jun;21(6):409-422
pubmed: 37222483
J Heart Valve Dis. 2014 Nov;23(6):795-802
pubmed: 25790630
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Sep;63(6):467-71
pubmed: 26177222
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jan;8(1):
pubmed: 25593122
EuroIntervention. 2022 Feb 18;17(15):1227-1237
pubmed: 34521614
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 Apr;135(4):732-8
pubmed: 18374749
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2023 Aug 1;24(8):506-513
pubmed: 37115966
EuroIntervention. 2019 May 20;15(1):37-43
pubmed: 30777843
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Autumn;32(3):427-430
pubmed: 31330180
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 10;63(22):2438-88
pubmed: 24603192
Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Oct;76(4):1131-6; discussion 1136-7
pubmed: 14529999
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Mar 19;61(11):1125-36
pubmed: 23375925
Innovations (Phila). 2015 Jul-Aug;10(4):230-5; discussion 235
pubmed: 26371451
J Card Surg. 2020 Feb;35(2):477-479
pubmed: 31765015