Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) using the Edwards FORTIS device.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has demonstrated the feasibility of treating valvular heart disease with transcatheter therapy. On the back of this success, various transcatheter concepts are being evaluated to treat other valvular disease, especially mitral regurgitation (MR). The concepts currently approved to treat MR replicate surgical mitral valve repair. However, most of them cannot eliminate MR completely. Similar to TAVI, a transcatheter mitral valve implantation may provide a valuable alternative. The FORTIS transcatheter mitral valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) is a self-expanding device implanted via a transapical approach. We describe our experience and early results in the first five patients treated on compassionate grounds. We also describe the details of the device, selection criteria and technical details of implantation.

Percutaneous mitral valve edge-to-edge repair: in-hospital results and 1-year follow-up of 628 patients of the 2011-2012 Pilot European Sentinel Registry.

BACKGROUND The use of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has gained widespread acceptance in Europe, but data on immediate success, safety, and long-term echocardiographic follow-up in real-world patients are still limited. OBJECTIVES The aim of this multinational registry is to present a real-world overview of TMVR use in Europe. METHODS The Transcatheter Valve Treatment Sentinel Pilot Registry is a prospective, independent, consecutive collection of individual patient data. RESULTS A total of 628 patients (mean age 74.2 ± 9.7 years, 63.1% men) underwent TMVR between January 2011 and December 2012 in 25 centers in 8 European countries. The prevalent pathogenesis was functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) (n = 452 [72.0%]). The majority of patients (85.5%) were highly symptomatic (New York Heart Association functional class III or higher), with a high logistic EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) (20.4 ± 16.7%). Acute procedural success was high (95.4%) and similar in FMR and degenerative mitral regurgitation (p = 0.662). One clip was implanted in 61.4% of patients. In-hospital mortality was low (2.9%), without significant differences between groups. The estimated 1-year mortality was 15.3%, which was similar for FMR and degenerative mitral regurgitation. The estimated 1-year rate of rehospitalization because of heart failure was 22.8%, significantly higher in the FMR group (25.8% vs. 12.0%, p[log-rank] = 0.009). Paired echocardiographic data from the 1-year follow-up, available for 368 consecutive patients in 15 centers, showed a persistent reduction in the degree of mitral regurgitation at 1 year (6.0% of patients with severe mitral regurgitation). CONCLUSIONS This independent, contemporary registry shows that TMVR is associated with high immediate success, low complication rates, and sustained 1-year reduction of the severity of mitral regurgitation and improvement of clinical symptoms.

Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 2: procedural issues and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

This article provides an overview on procedure-related issues and uncertainties in outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The different access sites and how to select them in an individual patient are discussed. Also, the occurrence and potential predictors of aortic regurgitation (AR) after TAVI are addressed. The different methods to quantify AR are reviewed, and it appears that accurate and reproducible quantification is suboptimal. Complications such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and conduction abnormalities (and need for permanent pacemaker) are discussed, as well as cerebrovascular events, which emphasize the development of optimal anti-coagulative strategies. Finally, recent registries have shown the adoption of TAVI in the real world, but longer follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the outcome (but also prosthesis durability). Additionally, future studies are briefly discussed, which will address the use of TAVI in pure AR and lower-risk patients.

Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 1: patient selection and treatment strategy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

An exponential increase in the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis has been witnessed over the recent years. The current article reviews different areas of uncertainty related to patient selection. The use and limitations of risk scores are addressed, followed by an extensive discussion on the value of three-dimensional imaging for prosthesis sizing and the assessment of complex valve anatomy such as degenerated bicuspid valves. The uncertainty about valvular stenosis severity in patients with a mismatch between the transvalvular gradient and the aortic valve area, and how integrated use of echocardiography and computed tomographic imaging may help, is also addressed. Finally, patients referred for TAVI may have concomitant mitral regurgitation and/or coronary artery disease and the management of these patients is discussed.

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.

Treatment of aortic stenosis with a self-expanding transcatheter valve: the International Multi-centre ADVANCE Study.

AIM Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become an alternative to surgery in higher risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The aim of the ADVANCE study was to evaluate outcomes following implantation of a self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system in a fully monitored, multi-centre 'real-world' patient population in highly experienced centres. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients with severe aortic stenosis at a higher surgical risk in whom implantation of the CoreValve System was decided by the Heart Team were included. Endpoints were a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or reintervention) and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. Endpoint-related events were independently adjudicated based on Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. A total of 1015 patients [mean logistic EuroSCORE 19.4 ± 12.3% [median (Q1,Q3), 16.0% (10.3, 25.3%)], age 81 ± 6 years] were enrolled. Implantation of the CoreValve System led to a significant improvement in haemodynamics and an increase in the effective aortic valve orifice area. At 30 days, the MACCE rate was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.3-9.7%), all-cause mortality was 4.5% (3.2-5.8%), cardiovascular mortality was 3.4% (2.3-4.6%), and the rate of stroke was 3.0% (2.0-4.1%). The life-threatening or disabling bleeding rate was 4.0% (2.8-6.3%). The 12-month rates of MACCE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke were 21.2% (18.4-24.1%), 17.9% (15.2-20.5%), 11.7% (9.4-14.1%), and 4.5% (2.9-6.1%), respectively. The 12-month rates of all-cause mortality were 11.1, 16.5, and 23.6% among patients with a logistic EuroSCORE ≤10%, EuroSCORE 10-20%, and EuroSCORE >20% (P< 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION The ADVANCE study demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the CoreValve System with low mortality and stroke rates in higher risk real-world patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Feasibility and outcomes of combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement with other structural heart interventions in a single session: a matched cohort study

Background Concurrent cardiac diseases are frequent among elderly patients and invite simultaneous treatment to ensure an overall favourable patient outcome. Aim To investigate the feasibility of combined single-session percutaneous cardiac interventions in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods This prospective, case–control study included 10 consecutive patients treated with TAVI, left atrial appendage occlusion and percutaneous coronary interventions. Some in addition had patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect closure in the same session. The patients were matched in a 1:10 manner with TAVI-only cases treated within the same time period at the same institution regarding their baseline factors. The outcome was validated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria. Results Procedural time (126±42 vs 83±40 min, p=0.0016), radiation time (34±8 vs 22±12 min, p=0.0001) and contrast dye (397±89 vs 250±105 mL, p<0.0001) were higher in the combined intervention group than in the TAVI-only group. Despite these drawbacks, no difference in the VARC endpoints was evident during the in-hospital period and after 30 days (VARC combined safety endpoint 32% for TAVI only and 20% for combined intervention, p=1.0). Conclusions Transcatheter treatment of combined cardiac diseases is feasible even in a single session in a high-volume centre with experienced operators.

Pitfalls and premature failure of the Freedom SOLO stentless valve.

OBJECTIVES This study reports a series of pitfalls, premature failures and explantations of the third-generation Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve. METHODS A total of 149 patients underwent aortic valve replacement using the FS. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average observation time of 5.5 ± 2.3 years (maximum 8.7 years) and a total of 825 patient-years. Following intraoperative documentation, all explanted valve prostheses underwent histological examination. RESULTS Freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 92, 88, 80, 70 and 62%, respectively. Fourteen prostheses required explantation due to valve-independent dysfunction (n = 5; i.e. thrombus formation, oversizing, aortic dilatation, endocarditis and suture dehiscence) or valve-dependent failure (acute leaflet tears, n = 4 and severe stenosis, n = 5). Thus, freedom from explantation at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 95, 94, 91, 81 and 72%, respectively. An acute vertical tear along the non-coronary/right coronary commissure to the base occurred at a mean of 6.0 years (range 4.3-7.3 years) and affected size 25 and 27 prostheses exclusively. Four FS required explantation after a mean of 7.5 years (range 7.0-8.3 years) due to severe functional stenosis and gross calcification that included the entire aortic root. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless valve is safe to implant and shows satisfying mid-term results in our single institution experience. Freedom from SVD and explantation decreased markedly after only 6-7 years, so that patients with FS require close observation and follow-up. Exact sizing, symmetric positioning and observing patient limitations are crucial for optimal outcome.

The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve

Abstract: The third-generation bovine pericardium Freedom SOLO (FS) stentless valve emerged in 2004 as a modified version of the Pericarbon Freedom stentless valve and as a very attractive alternative to stented bioprostheses. The design, choice of tissue, and anticalcification treatment fulfill most, if not all, requirements for an ideal valve substitute. The FS combines the single-suture, subcoronary implantation technique with the latest-generation bovine pericardial tissue and novel anticalcification treatment. The design allows imitation of the native healthy valve through unrestricted adaption to the patient's anatomy, reproducing a normal valve/root complex. However, despite hemodynamic performance superior to stented valves, we are approaching a critical observation period as superior durability, freedom from structural valve deterioration, and nonstructural failure has not been proven as expected. However, optimal performance and freedom from structural valve deterioration depend on correct sizing and perfect symmetric implantation, to ensure low leaflet stress. Any malpositioning can lead to tissue fatigue over time. Furthermore, the potential for better outcomes depends on optimal patient selection and observance of the limitations for the use of stentless valves, particularly for the FS. Clearly, stentless valve implantation techniques are less reproducible and standardized, and require surgeon-dependent experience and skill. Regardless of whether or not stentless valve durability surpasses third-generation stented bioprostheses, they will continue to play a role in the surgical repertoire. This review intends to help practitioners avoid pitfalls, observe limitations, and improve patient selection for optimal long-term outcome with the attractive FS stentless valve.

The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve: Single-center experience, outcome and long-term durability

Abstract Objectives We report our institutional experience and long-term results with the Sorin Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless bioprosthesis. Methods Between January 2005 and November 2009, 149 patients (mean age 73.6±8.7 years, 68 [45.6%] female) underwent isolated (n=75) or combined (n=74) aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the SOLO in our institution. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average follow-up time of 5.9±2.6 years (maximum 9.6 years) and a total of 885.3 patient years. Results Operative (30-day) mortality was 2.7% (1.3% for isolated AVR [n=1] and 4.0% for combined procedures [n=3]). All causes of death were not valve-related. Preoperative peak (mean) gradients of 74.2±23.0 mmHg (48.6 ± 16.3 mmHg) decreased to 15.6±5.4 (8.8±3.0) after AVR, and remained low for up to 9 years. The postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.6 ±0.57 cm2, 1.90±0.45 cm2, 2.12±0.48 cm2 and 2.20±0.66 cm2 for the valve sizes 21, 23, 25 and 27, respectively; with absence of severe prosthesis-patient-mismatch (PPM) and 0.7% (n=1) moderate PPM. During follow-up, Twenty-six patients experienced structural valve deterioration (SVD) and 14 patients underwent explantation. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from death, explantation and SVD at 9 years averaged 0.57 [0.47‒0.66], 0.82 [0.69‒0.90] and 0.70 [0.57‒0.79], respectively. Conclusions The Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve is safe to implant and shows excellent early and mid-term hemodynamic performance. However, SVD was observed in a substantial number of patients after only 5 ̶ 6 years and the need for explantation increased markedly, suggesting low durability.

Clinical experience with the freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve in 277 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND The Sorin Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve prosthesis is designed for supraannular, subcoronary implantation. We report our experience and results with 277 consecutively implanted FS bioprostheses. METHODS 277 patients (mean age, 74.2 ± 7.3 years; 139 (50.2%) female) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the FS stentless bioprosthesis. The hemodynamic performance was investigated with transthoracic echocardiography at discharge, 6 months later, and yearly thereafter. Follow-up was 100% complete, with an average observation time of 2.6 ± 1.7 years and a total of 697.3 patient-years. RESULTS The overall 30-day mortality was 4.3%. The mortalities for isolated AVR and combined procedures were 1.9% and 7.3%, respectively. No causes of death were valve-related. Preoperative peak (74.2 ± 23.0 mm Hg) and mean (48.6 ± 16.3 mm Hg) gradients decreased to 15.6 ± 5.4 mm Hg and 8.8 ± 3.0 mm Hg postoperatively and remained unchanged for as long as 5 years. The postoperative mean effective orifice area (EOA) for valve sizes 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 were 1.49 ± 0.32 cm(2), 1.67 ± 0.40 cm(2), 1.92 ± 0.38 cm(2), 2.01 ± 0.42 cm(2), and 2.13 ± 0.36 cm(2), respectively. Severe prosthesis-patient mismach (PPM) was completely absent, and moderate PPM occurred in 17 patients (6.1%). In isolated AVR, 0.8% of patients with preoperative sinus rhythm required a permanent pacemaker before hospital discharge. There was 100% freedom from structural valve deterioration, 99.6 % freedom from endocarditis and reoperation, and 97.3% freedom from thromboembolism at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless aortic valve is safe to implant, and it shows excellent hemodynamic performance and early and midterm results. Owing to the favorable EOA, the valve appears particularly attractive for patients at risk for PPM.

Decision-making in aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome: bleeding, thromboembolism and risk of reintervention after valve-sparing or mechanical aortic root replacement†

OBJECTIVES Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is thought to reduce the rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events compared with aortic root replacement using a mechanical aortic root replacement (MRR) with a composite graft by avoiding oral anticoagulation. But as VSRR carries a certain risk for subsequent reinterventions, decision-making in the individual patient can be challenging. METHODS Of 100 Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients who underwent 169 aortic surgeries and were followed at our institution since 1995, 59 consecutive patients without a history of dissection or prior aortic surgery underwent elective VSRR or MRR and were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS VSRR was performed in 29 (David n = 24, Yacoub n = 5) and MRR in 30 patients. The mean age was 33 ± 15 years. The mean follow-up after VSRR was 6.5 ± 4 years (180 patient-years) compared with 8.8 ± 9 years (274 patient-years) after MRR. Reoperation rates after root remodelling (Yacoub) were significantly higher than after the reimplantation (David) procedure (60 vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). The need for reinterventions after the reimplantation procedure (0.8% per patient-year) was not significantly higher than after MRR (P = 0.44) but follow-up after VSRR was significantly shorter (P = 0.03). There was neither significant morbidity nor mortality associated with root reoperations. There were no neurological events after VSRR compared with four stroke/intracranial bleeding events in the MRR group (log-rank, P = 0.11), translating into an event rate of 1.46% per patient-year following MRR. CONCLUSION The calculated annual failure rate after VSRR using the reimplantation technique was lower than the annual risk for thromboembolic or bleeding events. Since the perioperative risk of reinterventions following VSRR is low, patients might benefit from VSRR even if redo surgery may become necessary during follow-up.

Impact of mitral regurgitation on clinical outcomes of patients with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND Up to 1 in 6 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) present with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis and concomitant relevant mitral regurgitation (MR) is present in 30% to 55% of these patients. The effect of MR on clinical outcomes of LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 113 (18.7%) patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg, aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) were analyzed. LEF-LG patients were dichotomized into ≤mild MR (n=52) and ≥moderate MR (n=61). Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. No differences in mortality were observed at 30 days (P=0.76). At 1 year, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR had an adjusted 3-fold higher rate of all-cause mortality (11.5% versus 38.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-8.15]; P=0.011), as compared with LEF-LG patients with ≤mild MR. Mortality was mainly driven by cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.62; P=0.005). As compared with LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR assigned to medical therapy, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR undergoing TAVI had significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.75) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Moderate or severe MR is a strong independent predictor of late mortality in LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI. However, LEF-LG patients assigned to medical therapy have a dismal prognosis independent of MR severity suggesting that TAVI should not be withheld from symptomatic patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis even in the presence of moderate or severe MR.