Search

Background: In recent years, the use of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in the mitral position (TMVI) for the treatment of mitral valve pathology following ring or bioprosthetic implantation has emerged as a less invasive option in comparison to repeated mitral valve surgery (RMVS). We aimed to compare the early and mid-term results of these two strategies. Method: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent a mitral intervention in our institution between 2005 and 2022. Applying the exclusion criteria, 41 subjects were analyzed: 23 underwent RMVS, while 18 underwent a TMVI. The time-dependency treatment effect was approached using a landmark analysis, applying the Kaplan–Meier analysis at different time points. Results: The two study groups were comparable in terms of age (p = 0.18), gender (p = 0.78), body surface area (p = 0.33), and EuroSCORE II (p = 0.06). No patients died perioperatively or had a stroke. Two patients in each group died within the first 30 days following the procedure (RMVS 8.3% vs. TMVI 11.1%; p = 0.75). Eighteen patients had died at follow-up; two underwent re-intervention on their mitral valve (one in each group). The mean survival was not statistically different between groups (RMVS 8 ± 1.1 years, 95% CI 5.8–10.2, vs. TMVI 4.79 ± 0.82 years, 95% CI 3.1–6.4; log-rank = 0.087). A landmark analysis of survival after four years showed significantly worse survival for patients in the TMVI group in comparison with those treated surgically (log-rank = 0.047). Conclusions: TMVI and RMVS are both effective strategies with similar short-term outcomes. However, patients in the TMVI group showed a significantly lower survival rate after four years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of percutaneous treatment options provides novel therapeutic alternatives for older and feeble patients who are at high risk for any surgical procedure. The purpose of our review was to offer an up-to-date analysis of the rapidly expanding field of percutaneous technologies for mitral, tricuspid, and pulmonary procedures. Edge-to-edge repair is an established treatment for secondary mitral regurgitation (MR), while transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a potential and expanding option for managing both secondary and primary MR. However, additional advancements are necessary to enhance the safety and feasibility of this procedure. Transcatheter tricuspid intervention is an emerging option that was conceived after the success of transcatheter procedures in aortic and mitral valves, and it is currently still in the early stages of advancement. This can be attributed, at least in part, to the previously overlooked effect of tricuspid regurgitation on patient outcomes. The development of edge-to-edge repair represents the forefront of innovations in transcatheter procedures. There is a scarcity of data about tricuspid annuloplasty and replacement, and further study is necessary. Transcatheter mitral, tricuspid, and pulmonary procedures show prospects for the future, while their role in clinical practice has not been definitively established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Redo mitral valve surgery is the standard of care for failed mitral bioprostheses or recurrence of mitral regurgitation after repair. Nonetheless, catheter-based valve-in-valve (ViV) or valve-in-ring (ViR) procedures have increasingly become viable alternatives in high-risk subpopulations. Despite reported good initial results, little is known about longer-term outcomes. Here, we report the long-term outcomes of transcatheter mitral ViV and ViR procedures. Methods: All consecutive patients (n = 54) undergoing transcatheter mitral ViV or ViR procedures for failed bioprostheses or recurring regurgitation after mitral repair in the time period between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The mean age was 76.5 ± 6.5 years, and 30 (55.6%) of the patients were male. The procedures were done using a commercially available balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were obtained from the hospital's database and analyzed. Follow-up reached up to 9.9 years with a total of 164.3 patient-years. Results: A total 25 patients received a ViV and 29 patients a ViR procedure. Both groups were at high surgical risk with an STS-PROM of 5.9 ± 3.7% in ViV and 8.7 ± 9.0% in ViR patients (p < 0.01). The procedures themselves were mainly uneventful with no intraoperative deaths and a low conversion rate (n = 2/54; 3.7%). VARC-2 procedural success was low (ViV 20.0% and ViR 10.3%; p = 0.45), which was either driven by high rates of transvalvular pressure gradients ">5 mmHg" (ViV 92.0% and ViR 27.6%; p < 0.01) or residual regurgitation ">trace" (ViV 28.0% and ViR 82.7%; p < 0.01). ICU-stay was prolonged in both groups (ViV 3.8 ± 6.8 days and ViR 4.3 ± 6.3 days; p = 0.96) with acceptable hospital stay (ViV 9.9 ± 5.9 days and ViR 13.5 ± 8.0 days; p = 0.13). Despite 30-day mortality being acceptable (ViV 4.0% and ViR 6.9%; p = 1.00), the mean posthospital survival time was disappointingly low (ViV 3.9 ± 2.6 years and ViR 2.3 ± 2.7 years; p < 0.01). Overall survival in the entire group was 33.3%. Cardiac reasons for death were frequent in both groups (ViV 38.5% and ViR 52.2%). Cox-regression analysis identified ViR procedures as a predictor of mortality (HR 2.36, CI 1.19–4.67, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Despite acceptable immediate outcomes in this high-risk subpopulation, long-term results are discouraging. Transvalvular pressure gradients as well as residual regurgitations remained drawbacks in this real-world population. The indication for catheter-based mitral ViV or ViR procedures rather than conventional redo-surgery or conservative treatment must be thoughtfully considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Re-operative mitral valve (MV) replacement is a high-risk procedure, therefore, transcatheter MV replacement (TMVR) is a promising therapeutic option.Aim: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of TMVR in patients with high surgical risk with degenerated mitral bioprostheses (TMViV), failed surgical rings (TMViR), and mitral annular calcification (TMViMAC).Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study that enrolled patients with high surgical risk who underwent TMVR from February 2017 to September 2020. The TMVR procedure was performed using Edwards SAPIEN-3 valves through the transseptal approach.Results: Sixty-four patients aged 62.7 ± 16.1 years with an STS score of 9.2 ± 3.7% underwent TMVR [35 (55%) TMViV, 16 (25%) TMViR, and 13 (20%) TMViMAC]. Mitral stenosis was more frequent in TMViV, mitral regurgitation was more frequent in TMViR, and combined mitral stenosis and regurgitation were more frequent in TMViMAC (P < 0.05). The MV gradient was 14.3 ± 5.3 mmHg and the MV area was 1.5±0.6 cm2. The 29 mm valve was frequently used in TMViV and TMViMAC, while the 23 mm valve was frequently used in TMViR (P=0.003 ∗ ). The procedural and fluoroscopy times were 58.7 ± 8.9 and 41.1 ± 8.2 minutes, respectively. Technical success was reported in 62 (98.4%) patients; 1 TMViR patient experienced valve embolization and salvage surgery, and 1 TMViMAC patient experienced slight valve malposition. At 3 months, 2 (3.1%) patients showed valve thrombosis (treated with anticoagulation), and 1 (1.6%) patient developed a paravalvular leak (underwent surgical MV replacement). At 6 months, 3 (4.7%) patients showed valve degeneration (underwent surgical MV replacement). Throughout follow-up, no patient exhibited mortality.Conclusions: TMVR is a feasible and safe approach in patients with high surgical risk. TMViV and TMViR are reasonable as the first treatment approaches, and TMViMAC seems encouraging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Mitral valve repair is a common surgical procedure for both primary and secondary mitral regurgitation. With operations performed earlier in disease progression and increased patient longevity, the need for a repeat intervention is not infrequent. With the associated risks of reoperation and patient comorbidities, percutaneous techniques for acute or delayed failure after ring annuloplasty are emerging. Recent Findings: Current commercially available devices, used in "off-label" ways, such as the MitraClip, may be effective in repairing recurrent mitral regurgitation after annuloplasty. Similarly, a valve-in-ring transcatheter mitral valve replacement can be considered in patients at high risk for surgical reoperation. These procedures are not without risk, for example, resultant mitral stenosis in the setting of edge-to-edge repair or left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction with valve-in-ring transcatheter mitral valve replacement. Newer devices are emerging to permit more options for this subset of patients, which include transcatheter valves that are specifically designed for the mitral position. Summary: Undoubtedly, surgical reoperation has increased risk as compared to primary operation. Though percutaneous options are evolving, use in this patient population is currently limited to "off-label" use and is also associated with procedural complexities and risk. It is prudent for cardiologists, surgeons, and anesthesiologists to weigh risks, benefits, and limitations when considering patients for surgical reoperation, percutaneous repair, or transcatheter replacement after failed mitral annuloplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)]. Methods and results From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 ± 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P  < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P  < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P  < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation ≥moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P  < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P  = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P  < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P  < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27–3.12; P  = 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29–8.51; P  < 0.001]. Conclusion The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We analysed the early and long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of balloon-expandable transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) in an experienced centre. Methods and results All patients undergoing TMVI from July 2010 to July 2017 in our centre were prospectively included. Indication for TMVI relied on the judgement of the local heart team. Patients were followed at 1 month, 1 year, and yearly thereafter. A total of 91 patients underwent TMVI. The median age was 73 (57–81) years and 70% of patients were women. Patients were at high risk for surgery with a median EuroSCORE II of 9.6 (4.0–14.6) %. Indication for TMVI was bioprosthesis failure (valve-in-valve) in 37.3%, annuloplasty failure (valve-in-ring) in 33.0%, and severe mitral annulus calcification (MAC) in 29.7%. The transseptal approach was used in 92.3% of patients and balloon-expandable valves were used in all patients. Technical success was achieved in 84.6% of patients, one patient died during the procedure and haemodynamically significant left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred in three patients (3.3%). At 30 days, 7.7% of patients had died, without significant differences between groups, and a major stroke occurred in 2.2% of patients. The cumulative rates of all-cause mortality at 1-year and 2-year follow-up were 21.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9–38.8] and 35.7% (95% CI 19.2–56.5), respectively, with a higher late mortality in patients with MAC. The 2-year rates of re-intervention and valve thrombosis were 8.8% and 14.4%, respectively. At 6 months to 1 year, 68.9% of patients were in New York Heart Association Class I or II, and 90.7% of patients had mild or less mitral regurgitation. The mean transmitral gradient decreased from 9.3 ± 3.9 mmHg at baseline to 6.0 ± 2.3 mmHg at discharge (P  < 0.001) without changes at 6-month to 1-year follow-up. Conclusion Transcatheter mitral valve implantation using balloon-expandable valves in selected patients with bioprosthesis or annuloplasty failure or severe MAC was associated with a low rate of peri-procedural complications and acceptable long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]