Transcarotid aortic valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated stentless aortic root conduits with severe regurgitation: a case series

OBJECTIVES Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is routinely performed via the transfemoral and the transapical route. Subclavian and direct aortic access are described alternatives for TAVI. Recently, the transcarotid approach has been shown to be feasible among patients with limited vascular access and severe native aortic valve stenosis. We aim to investigate the feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation via the transcarotid access in patients with severe aortic regurgitation due to degenerated stentless Shelhigh conduits using the 29 mm Medtronic CoreValve bioprosthesis. METHODS Three patients with complex vascular anatomy undergoing transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation via the transcarotid route were enrolled in the study. The procedure was performed under general anaesthesia using surgical cut-down to facilitate vascular access. Immediate procedural results as well as echocardiographic and clinical outcomes after 30 days and 6 months of the follow-up were recorded and analysed. RESULTS All three patients underwent unproblematic TAVI and experienced dramatic improvement of symptoms. Mean transvalvular gradient was 3, 6 and 11 mmHg, respectively. Effective orifice area ranged between 1.7 and 2.2 cm(2). Only mild paravalvular regurgitation was detected by echocardiography after 30 days of the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The transcarotid approach can be safely performed for valve-in-valve procedures using the Medtronic CoreValve in patients with limited vascular access. It enables accurate positioning and implantation of the prosthesis.

Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial)†.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the Cavalier trial was to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We report the 30-day clinical and haemodynamic outcomes from the largest study cohort with a sutureless valve. METHODS From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 consecutive patients (mean age 77.8 years; 64.4% females; mean logistic EuroSCORE 10.2%) underwent AVR in 25 European Centres. Isolated AVRs were performed in 451 (68.5%) patients with a less invasive approach in 219 (33.3%) cases. Of the total, 40.0% were octogenarians. Congenital bicuspid aortic valve was considered an exclusion criterion. RESULTS Implantation was successful in 628 patients (95.4%). In isolated AVR through sternotomy, the mean cross-clamp time and the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were 32.6 and 53.7 min, and with the less invasive approach 38.8 and 64.5 min, respectively. The 30-day overall and valve-related mortality rates were 3.7 and 0.5%, respectively. Valve explants, stroke and endocarditis occurred in 0.6, 2.1 and in 0.1% of cases, respectively. Preoperative mean and peak pressure gradients decreased from 44.8 and 73.24 mmHg to 10.24 and 19.27 mmHg at discharge, respectively. The mean effective orifice area improved from 0.72 to 1.46 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS The current 30-day results show that the Perceval valve is safe (favourable haemodynamic effect and low complication rate), and can be implanted with a fast and reproducible technique after a short learning period. Short cross-clamp and CPB times were achieved in both isolated and combined procedures. The Perceval valve represents a promising alternative to biological AVR, especially with a less invasive approach and in older patients.

Expanding Indications of Transcatheter Heart Valve Interventions.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been established as a less invasive alternative to open-heart surgery in inoperable or high-risk patients presenting with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. The feasibility and efficacy of valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses have also been described and can currently be considered a valuable treatment option in patients deemed unsuitable for repeat cardiac surgery. However, the clinical use of TAVR devices is not limited to the treatment of the tricuspid stenotic aortic valve. Several additional indications including treatment of the bicuspid stenotic aortic valve, aortic regurgitation, and valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring implantation in the mitral or tricuspid position as well as treatment of pure mitral, tricuspid, or pulmonary regurgitation have been described. The purpose of the present review is to summarize the available evidence concerning the emerging off-label use of TAVR devices in current clinical practice. Case examples have been selected to highlight the main procedural steps of each particular intervention.

Quantitative multi-slice computed tomography assessment of the mitral valvular complex for transcatheter mitral valve interventions part 1: systematic measurement methodology and inter-observer variability

AIMS Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an emerging technology with the potential to treat patients with severe mitral regurgitation at excessive risk for surgical mitral valve surgery. Multimodal imaging of the mitral valvular complex and surrounding structures will be an important component for patient selection for TMVR. Our aim was to describe and evaluate a systematic multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) image analysis methodology that provides measurements relevant for transcatheter mitral valve replacement. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic step-by-step measurement methodology is described for structures of the mitral valvular complex including: the mitral valve annulus, left ventricle, left atrium, papillary muscles and left ventricular outflow tract. To evaluate reproducibility, two observers applied this methodology to a retrospective series of 49 cardiac MSCT scans in patients with heart failure and significant mitral regurgitation. For each of 25 geometrical metrics, we evaluated inter-observer difference and intra-class correlation. The inter-observer difference was below 10% and the intra-class correlation was above 0.81 for measurements of critical importance in the sizing of TMVR devices: the mitral valve annulus diameters, area, perimeter, the inter-trigone distance, and the aorto-mitral angle. CONCLUSIONS MSCT can provide measurements that are important for patient selection and sizing of TMVR devices. These measurements have excellent inter-observer reproducibility in patients with functional mitral regurgitation.

The sutureless aortic valve at 1 year: A large multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) offers an alternative to standard AVR in aortic stenosis. This prospective, single-arm study aimed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of a bovine pericardial sutureless aortic valve at 1 year. METHODS From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 patients (mean age 78.3 ± 5.6 years; 40.0% octogenarian; 64.4% female; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 7.2 ± 7.4) underwent sutureless AVR in 25 European centers. Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 29.5% and minimally invasive cardiac surgery in 33.3%. RESULTS One-year site-reported event rates were 8.1% for all-cause mortality, 4.5% for cardiac mortality, 3.0% for stroke, 1.9% for valve-related reoperation, 1.4% for endocarditis, and 0.6% for major paravalvular leak. No valve thrombosis, migration, or structural valve deterioration occurred. New York Heart Association class improved at least 1 level in 77.5% and remained stable (70.4% New York Heart Association class I or II at 1 year). Mean effective orifice area was 1.5 ± 0.4 cm(2); pressure gradient was 9.2 ± 5.0 mm Hg. Left ventricular mass decreased from 138.5 g/m(2) before surgery to 115.3 g/m(2) at 1 year (P < .001). Echocardiographic core laboratory findings confirmed that paravalvular leak was rare and remained stable during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The Perceval sutureless valve resulted in low 1-year event rates in intermediate-risk patients undergoing AVR. New York Heart Association class improved in more than three-quarters of patients and remained stable. These data support the safety and efficacy to 1 year of the Perceval sutureless valve in this intermediate-risk population.

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.

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.

The future of transcatheter mitral valve interventions: competitive or complementary role of repair vs. replacement?

Transcatheter mitral interventions has been developed to address an unmet clinical need and may be an alternative therapeutic option to surgery with the intent to provide symptomatic and prognostic benefit. Beyond MitraClip therapy, alternative repair technologies are being developed to expand the transcatheter intervention armamentarium. Recently, the feasibility of transcatheter mitral valve implantation in native non-calcified valves has been reported in very high-risk patients. Acknowledging the lack of scientific evidence to date, it is difficult to predict what the ultimate future role of transcatheter mitral valve interventions will be. The purpose of the present report is to review the current state-of-the-art of mitral valve intervention, and to identify the potential future scenarios, which might benefit most from the transcatheter repair and replacement devices under development.

Clinical outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk according to treatment modality

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with medical treatment (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at increased surgical risk. Background Elderly patients with comorbidities are at considerable risk for SAVR. Methods Since July 2007, 442 patients with severe AS (age: 81.7 ± 6.0 years, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 22.3 ± 14.6%) underwent treatment allocation to MT (n = 78), SAVR (n = 107), or TAVI (n = 257) on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation protocol as part of a prospective registry. Results Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients allocated to MT and TAVI, whereas patients allocated to SAVR were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower predicted peri-operative risk (p < 0.001). Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months were lower for SAVR (22.4%) and TAVI (22.6%) compared with MT (61.5%, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.87) for SAVR compared with MT and 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.58) for TAVI compared with MT. Medical treatment (<0.001), older age (>80 years, p = 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (<0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months in the multivariate analysis. At 1 year, more patients undergoing SAVR (92.3%) or TAVI (93.2%) had New York Heart Association functional class I/II as compared with patients with MT (70.8%, p = 0.003). Conclusions Among patients with severe AS with increased surgical risk, SAVR and TAVI improve survival and symptoms compared with MT. Clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR seem similar among carefully selected patients with severe symptomatic AS at increased risk.

Clinical outcome of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing medical treatment or TAVI

Introduction Reduced left ventricular function in patients with severe symptomatic valvular aortic stenosis is associated with impaired clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has been shown non-inferior to SAVR in high-risk patients with respect to mortality and may result in faster left ventricular recovery. Methods We investigated clinical outcomes of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing medical treatment (n = 71) or TAVI (n = 256) stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a prospective single center registry. Results Twenty-five patients (35%) among the medical cohort were found to have an LVEF≤30% (mean 26.7±4.1%) and 37 patients (14%) among the TAVI patients (mean 25.2±4.4%). Estimated peri-interventional risk as assessed by logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in patients with severely impaired LVEF as compared to patients with LVEF>30% (medical/TAVI 38.5±13.8%/40.6±16.4% versus medical/TAVI 22.5±10.8%/22.1±12.8%, p <0.001). In patients undergoing TAVI, there was no significant difference in the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, major stroke, life-threatening bleeding, major access-site complications, valvular re-intervention, or renal failure at 30 days between the two groups (21.0% versus 27.0%, p = 0.40). After TAVI, patients with LVEF≤30% experienced a rapid improvement in LVEF (from 25±4% to 34±10% at discharge, p = 0.002) associated with improved NYHA functional class at 30 days (decrease ≥1 NYHA class in 95%). During long-term follow-up no difference in survival was observed in patients undergoing TAVI irrespective of baseline LVEF (p = 0.29), whereas there was a significantly higher mortality in medically treated patients with severely reduced LVEF (log rank p = 0.001). Conclusion TAVI in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function may be performed safely and is associated with rapid recovery of systolic left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms.

The SURTAVI model: proposal for a pragmatic risk stratification for patients with severe aortic stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a high operative risk. Risk stratification plays a decisive role in the optimal selection of therapeutic strategies for AS patients. The accuracy of contemporary surgical risk algorithms for AS patients has spurred considerable debate especially in the higher risk patient population. Future trials will explore TAVI in patients at intermediate operative risk. During the design of the SURgical replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) trial, a novel concept of risk stratification was proposed based upon age in combination with a fixed number of predefined risk factors, which are relatively prevalent, easy to capture and with a reasonable impact on operative mortality. Retrospective application of this algorithm to a contemporary academic practice dealing with clinically significant AS patients allocates about one-fourth of these patients as being at intermediate operative risk. Further testing is required for validation of this new paradigm in risk stratification. Finally, the Heart Team, consisting of at least an interventional cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon, should have the decisive role in determining whether a patient could be treated with TAVI or SAVR.

Transapical valve-in-valve implantation for regurgitant stented aortic bioprostheses

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is rapidly evolving as an alternative treatment option for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and excessive risk for surgical intervention. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an alternative approach to redo-surgery for patients with degeneration of a bioprosthetic valve. Herein are reported three cases of successful transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for severely regurgitant bioprosthetic valves with a clinical follow up of more than 12 months.

Pathology of transcatheter valve therapy

This study sought to report on the pathology of transcatheter aortic valves explanted at early and late time points after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Deleterious outcome of No-React-treated stentless valved conduits after aortic root replacement: why were warnings ignored?

OBJECTIVE: The implantation of a composite graft is the treatment of choice for patients with aortic root disease if the valve cannot be preserved and the patient is not a suitable candidate for a Ross procedure. Several years ago, the Shelhigh NR-2000C (Shelhigh, Inc, Millburn, NJ) was introduced in Europe. Being a totally biologic conduit and considering the lack of homografts, the graft seemed an ideal conduit for patients with destructive endocarditis, as well as for older patients who were not suitable candidates for oral anticoagulation. METHODS: From 2001 until 2006, the Shelhigh NR-2000C stentless valved conduit was implanted in 115 patients for various aortic root pathologies. The conduit consists of a bovine pericardial straight graft with an incorporated porcine stentless valve. Aortic root repair was performed during standard cardiopulmonary bypass and mild hypothermia in the majority of patients. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest combined with selective antegrade cerebral perfusion was used when the repair extended into the arch. RESULTS: Seven patients with uncomplicated early outcome presented with unexpected sudden disastrous findings at the level of the aortic root, although 1-year follow-up computed tomographic scans were normal. Four of these patients underwent emergency operations because of desintegration of the graft, along with rupture of the aortic root. Retrospectively, the main findings were persistent fever or subfebrility over months and a halo-like enhancement on computed tomographic scans. Extensive microbiologic examinations were performed without finding a causative organism. CONCLUSION: The use of the Shelhigh aortic stentless conduit can no longer be advocated, and meticulous follow-up of patients in whom this device has been implanted has to be recommended.

[Treatment of the aortic valve and ascending aorta. The significance of reconstructive methods on the aortic root]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The standard surgical repair of disease of the aortic valve and the ascending aorta has been combined replacement, which includes the disadvantage of inserting a mechanical valve. We have investigated an individualized approach which preserves the native valve. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1995 and October 1997, a consecutive total of 101 patients (72 men, 29 women, aged 21-83 years) underwent operations for disease of the ascending aorta: aortic dissection type A in 34 patients, aneurysmal dilatation in 67. Dilatation of the aortic arch was associated with aortic regurgitation in 58 patients. There were 11 patients with aortic valve stenosis or previously implanted aortic valve prosthesis among a total of 46 whose aortic valve was replaced (group II). Supracommissural aortic replacement with a Dacron tube was performed in 16 patients (group I) with normal valve cusps and an aortic root diameter < 3.5 cm. In 28 patients with an aortic root diameter of 3.5-5.0 cm the aortic root was remodelled (group III). Resuspension of the native aortic valve was undertaken in 11 patients with aortic root dilatation of > 5.0 cm (group IV). RESULTS: Operative intervention was electively performed in 72 patients, without any death. Of 29 patients operated as an emergency for acute type A dissection four died (14%). In 55 of the 58 patients with aortic regurgitation in proved possible to preserve native aortic valve (95%). In the early postoperative phase and after an average follow-up time of 11.8 months, transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated good aortic valve function, except in one patient each of groups III and IV who developed aortic regurgitation grades I or II. CONCLUSION: The described individualized approach makes it possible to preserve the native aortic valve in most patients with aortic regurgitation, at a low risk. Follow-up observations so far indicate good results of the reconstruction.