Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves

We sought to analyze outcomes of patients with degenerated surgically implanted bioprosthetic heart valves undergoing valve-in-valve (viv) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age

Aortic valve replacement using a tissue valve is controversial for patients younger than 60 years old. The long-term survival in this age group, the expected event rates during long-term follow-up, and valve-related complications are not clearly determined.

Long-term results after operations for active infective endocarditis in native and prosthetic valves

The objective of this study was to evaluate the midterm results of patients who underwent operations for active infective endocarditis.

[Does yoghurt gnaw at cardiac valves?]

A 22-year-old man with pre-existing aortic valve disease contracted acute lactobacillus endocarditis six weeks after a dental procedure despite adequate prophylaxis. We discuss the limitations of prophylaxis for infective endocarditis in use until the end of 2008 and describe the new updated guidelines. We also explain the treatment of lactobacillus endocarditis and speculate on possible health risks of the increasing use of lactobacillus-containing dairy products, especially in immune-compromised patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.

IMPORTANCE Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.

Mitral valve replacement in patients under 65 years of age: mechanical or biological valves?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW There is controversy regarding the optimal choice of prosthetic valves in patients less than 65 years of age requiring mitral valve replacement (MVR). Recently, trends for valve replacement are moving towards biological prosthesis also in younger patients, which is justified by the fact that a later valve-in-valve procedure is feasible in the case of degeneration of the tissue valve. This strategy is increasingly recommended in aortic valve surgery but is questionable for MVR. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current guidelines and analyse evidence for biological MVR in patients under 65 years. RECENT FINDINGS There are differences between guidelines of the American Heart Association and those of the European Society of Cardiology concerning the choice of prostheses in patients undergoing MVR. Although the European Society of Cardiology recommends a mechanical mitral valve in patients under 65 years of age, the American Heart Association does not provide detailed advice for these patients. Mitral valve replacement with biological valves in patients under 65 years is associated with higher rates of reoperation due to structural valve deterioration. In addition, several studies showed a decreased survival after biological MVR. SUMMARY Evidence for biological MVR in patients less than 65 years without comorbidities or contraindication for oral anticoagulation does not exist. Recommendations for patients less than 65 years of age should not be blurred by current 'en-vogue' methods for promising but not yet proven valve-in-valve strategies.

Only Neochordoplasty Achieves Physiological Trans-valvular Pressure Gradients After Repair Of Acute Posterior Leaflet Prolapse In Porcine Mitral Valves

Objective: Minimizing resection and preserving leaflet tissue has been previously shown to be beneficial for mitral valve function and leaflet kinematics after repair of acute posterior leaflet prolapse in porcine valves. We examined the effects of different additional methods of mitral valve repair (neochordoplasty, ring annuloplasty, edge-to-edge repair and triangular resection) on hemodynamics at different heart rates in an experimental model. Methods: Severe acute P2 prolapse was created in eight porcine mitral valves by resecting the posterior marginal chordae. Valve hemodynamics was quantified under pulsatile conditions in an in vitro heart simulator before and after surgical manipulation. Mitral regurgitation was corrected using four different methods of repair on the same valve: neochordoplasty with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures alone and together with ring annuloplasty, edge-to-edge repair and triangular resection, both with non-restrictive annuloplasty. Residual mitral valve leak, trans-valvular pressure gradients, flow and cardiac output were measured at 60 and 80 beats/min. A validated statistical linear mixed model was used to analyze the effect of treatment. The p values were calculated using a two-sided Wald test. Results: Only neochordoplasty with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures but without ring annuloplasty achieved similar hemodynamics compared to those of the native mitral valve (p range 0.071-0.901). Trans-valvular diastolic pressure gradients were within a physiologic range but significantly higher than those of the native valve following neochordoplasty with ring annuloplasty (p=0.000), triangular resection (p=0.000) and edge-to-edge repair (p=0.000). Neochordoplasty alone was significantly better in terms of hemodynamic than neochordoplasty with a ring annuloplasty (p=0.000). These values were stable regardless of heart rate or ring size. Conclusions: Neochordoplasty without ring annuloplasty is the only repair technique able to achieve almost native physiological hemodynamics after correction of leaflet prolapse in a porcine experimental model of acute chordal rupture.

Procedural Results and Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Switzerland: An Observational Cohort Study of Sapien 3 Versus Sapien XT Transcatheter Heart Valves.

BACKGROUND New generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) may improve clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS In a nationwide, prospective, multicenter cohort study (Swiss Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Registry, NCT01368250), outcomes of consecutive transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients treated with the Sapien 3 THV (S3) versus the Sapien XT THV (XT) were investigated. An overall of 153 consecutive S3 patients were compared with 445 consecutive XT patients. Postprocedural mean transprosthetic gradient (6.5±3.0 versus 7.8±6.3 mm Hg, P=0.17) did not differ between S3 and XT patients, respectively. The rate of more than mild paravalvular regurgitation (1.3% versus 5.3%, P=0.04) and of vascular (5.3% versus 16.9%, P<0.01) complications were significantly lower in S3 patients. A higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantations was observed in patients receiving the S3 valve (17.0% versus 11.0%, P=0.01). There were no significant differences for disabling stroke (S3 1.3% versus XT 3.1%, P=0.29) and all-cause mortality (S3 3.3% versus XT 4.5%, P=0.27). CONCLUSIONS The use of the new generation S3 balloon-expandable THV reduced the risk of more than mild paravalvular regurgitation and vascular complications but was associated with an increased permanent pacemaker rate compared with the XT. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the newest generation balloon-expandable THV is associated with a low risk of stroke and favorable clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01368250.