Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement With Balloon- Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Patients With Degenerated Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis.

CoreValve Evolut Edwards Sapien Stentless bioprosthesis TAVR valve-in-valve

Journal

The American journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1879-1913
Titre abrégé: Am J Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0207277

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 22 03 2024
revised: 02 08 2024
accepted: 02 08 2024
medline: 9 8 2024
pubmed: 9 8 2024
entrez: 8 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Valve-in-Valve (ViV) Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with favorable outcomes in patients with degenerated stentless bioprosthesis. However, whether the outcomes after ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprosthesis differ between balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) remains unknown. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive patients who underwent ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis with BEV (N= 42) versus SEV (N= 17) in a single-healthcare system between 2013 and 2022. Overall, mean age was 70.8 years and 74.6% were males. Mean transcatheter valve size was 26.3 ±2.2 mm for BEV and 26.4 ±4 mm for SEV (p= 0.93). Mean STS score was 6.0 ±3.6 for BEV and 7.5 ±5.5 for SEV (p= 0.22). Compared with patients who received BEV, those who received SEV had higher rates of device malposition (2.4% vs. 23.5%; p< 0.01), post-deployment balloon dilation (11.9% vs. 35.5%; p= 0.04) and need for a second transcatheter device (2.4% vs. 35.5%; p< 0.01). However, both groups showed similar improvement in aortic valve function at 30-day and 1-year follow-up (incidence of 1-year severe patient-prosthesis mismatch in BEV: 17.6% vs. 14.3% in SEV; p= 0.78). One-year and 3-year mortality did not differ between BEV and SEV (11.9% vs. 11.8% and 25% vs. 30%; respectively; Log rank p= 0.9). In conclusion, performing ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis is technically challenging, especially when using SEV, but satisfactory positioning is possible in most cases, with excellent hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with both BEV and SEV.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39117008
pii: S0002-9149(24)00577-0
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.08.001
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Ghadi Moubarak (G)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX. Electronic address: Ghadi.moubarak@bswhealth.org.

Mohammed Salih (M)

Department of Cardiology, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital Plano, TX.

John Eisenga (J)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX.

Kyle McCullough (K)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX.

Osniel Gonzalez Ramos (OG)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX.

Jasjit Banwait (J)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX.

Karim Al-Azizi (K)

Department of Cardiology, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital Plano, TX.

Michael J Mack (MJ)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital Plano, TX.

J Michael DiMaio (JM)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital Plano, TX.

Molly I Szerlip (MI)

Baylor Scott and White Research Institute Plano, TX; Department of Cardiology, Baylor Scott and White The Heart Hospital Plano, TX.

Classifications MeSH