Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

A comparison of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed stentless versus stented surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Authors
  • Choi, Charles H1
  • Cheng, Vivian1
  • Malaver, Diego1
  • Kon, Neal2
  • Kincaid, Edward H2
  • Gandhi, Sanjay K1
  • Applegate, Robert J1
  • Zhao, David X M1
  • 1 Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
  • 2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Type
Published Article
Journal
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Publisher
Wiley (John Wiley & Sons)
Publication Date
May 01, 2019
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
1106–1115
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28039
PMID: 30588736
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to compare short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes, procedural complications, TAVR prosthesis hemodynamics, and paravalvular leak (PVL) in stentless and stented groups. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical redo for bioprosthetic valve failure. There have been limited data on ViV in stentless surgical valves. We retrospectively analyzed 40 patients who underwent ViV TAVR in prior surgical bioprosthetic valves at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from October 2014 to September 2017. Eighty percent (32/40) ViV TAVRs were in stentless, while 20% (8/40) were in stented bioprosthetic valves. The primary mode of bioprosthetic valve failure for ViV implantation in the stentless group was aortic insufficiency (78%, 25/32), while in the stented group was aortic stenosis (75%, 6/8). The ViV procedure success was 96.9% (31/32) in stentless group and 100% in stented group (8/8). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality at 30 days between stentless and stented groups (6.9%, 2/31 versus 0%, 0/8, P = 0.33) and at 1 year (0%, 0/25 versus 0%, 0/5). In the stentless group, 34.4% (11/32) required a second valve compared to the stented group of 0% (0/8). There was a significant difference in the mean aortic gradient at 30-day follow-up (12.33 ± 6.33 mmHg and 22.63 ± 8.45 mmHg in stentless and stented groups, P < 0.05) and at 6-month follow-up (9.75 ± 5.07 mmHg and 24.00 ± 11.28 mmHg, P < 0.05), respectively. ViV in the stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve has excellent procedural success and intermediate-term results. Our study shows promising data that may support the application of TAVR in stentless surgical aortic valve. However, further and larger studies need to further validate our single center's experience. © 2018 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times