Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become more common than surgical aortic valve replacement since 2016, with over 200,000 procedures globally each year. As patients increasingly outlive their TAVR devices, managing these cases is a growing concern. Treatment options include surgical removal of the old TAVR device (transcatheter aortic valve [TAV] explant) or implantation of a new transcatheter aortic valve (redo TAV). Redo TAV is complex because of the unique designs of TAV devices; compatibility issues; and the need for individualized planning based on factors such as implant depth, shape, and coronary artery relationships. This review serves as a comprehensive guide for redo TAV, detailing the design characteristics of TAV devices, device compatibility, standardized terminology, and a structured approach for computed tomography analysis. It aims to facilitate decision making, risk identification, and achieving optimal outcomes in redo TAV procedures. [Display omitted] • Because TAVR has now expanded to patients with longer life expectancies, increasing numbers of patients will present with structural valve deterioration of TAV prostheses. It is important to understand the risks and suitability of patients for repeat implantation of another TAV (redo TAV or TAV-in-TAV). • Unlike valve-in-valve for failed surgical aortic valve replacement because of the complexity of TAV designs, a systematic CT analysis for each combination is necessary to determine suitability with respect to coronary risk, sizing, and injury to the surrounding structures. • Bench testing, prospective clinical studies, and validation of CT algorithms with simulation software will play a critical role in appropriate case selection and improving outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome. The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV. Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]). Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm2; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176). In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implications and potential challenges of coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. The authors sought to evaluate the impact of different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs, neoskirt height, implant technique, and cell misalignment on coronary access after redo TAVR. Different THV designs (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences LLC], Evolut Pro [Medtronic], ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific Corporation], and Portico [Abbott Structural Heart]) and sizes were implanted inside Sapien XT (Edwards Lifesciences LLC) and Evolut R (Medtronic) THVs, which were modeled as the "failed" THVs, at different implant depths. Valve combinations underwent micro–computed tomography to determine the neoskirt height and dimensions of the lowest accessible cell for potential coronary access. This was compared with dimensions of 6-F/7-F/8-F coronary guiding catheters. Redo TAVR combinations resulted in a wide range of neoskirt heights (15.4-31.6 mm) and a variable diameter of the lowest accessible cell (1.9-21.8 mm). An ACURATE neo implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the largest accessible cells, whereas a Portico implanted in a Sapien XT resulted in the lowest neoskirt heights. The smallest accessible cell was observed in the Evolut Pro–in–Evolut R configuration with higher neoskirt heights. Redo TAVR in a tall frame valve with supra-annular leaflets caused a taller neoskirt height. In Evolut-in-Evolut combinations, misalignment of the cells of the 2 THVs reduced the cell area by 30% to 50% compared with an aligned configuration. This study demonstrates that different redo TAVR combinations are not equivalent in terms of future coronary access. Redo TAVR using a tall frame valve in a failed tall frame valve and misaligned cells may lead to potentially challenging coronary access. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to examine real-world experience with repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a population-based national database. Repeat TAVR is a growing option in patients requiring reintervention for TAVR. However, large-scale studies with longitudinal follow-up are limited. All Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 were included. Outcomes included 30-day and longitudinal mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, stroke, pacemaker insertion, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or cardiac arrest. Outcomes of repeat TAVR were compared with surgical explantation after TAVR (TAVR explantation) in a matched analysis. Of 133,250 patients who underwent TAVR, 617 (0.46%) underwent subsequent repeat TAVR at a median interval of 154 days (interquartile range: 58-537 days). Mortality at 30 days and 1 year was 6.0% and 22.0%, respectively. Rates of 30-day stroke and pacemaker insertion were 1.8% and 4.2%. Mortality at 30 days was lower in those who underwent their first TAVR during the later era (2015-2017) compared with earlier years (2012-2014) (4.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.049). Repeat TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with a matched group undergoing TAVR explantation (6.2% vs 12.3%; P = 0.05), although 1-year mortality was similar (21.0% vs 20.8%; P = 1.000). The incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events was higher with TAVR explantation compared with repeat TAVR (risk ratio: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.88-4.99; P ≤ 0.001). Repeat TAVR was performed with acceptable 30-day mortality in this high-risk population. Short-term outcomes were superior to surgical explantation, but 1-year outcomes were similar. Repeat TAVR will likely be an important option for aortic valve reintervention after TAVR. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) on mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). MR is common in patients undergoing TAVR. Data on optimal management of patients with significant MR after TAVR are limited. The registry consisted of 16 TAVR centers (n = 7,303). Outcomes of patients with ≥ moderate versus lesser grade MR after TAVR were compared. In 1,983 (27.2%) patients, baseline MR grade was ≥ moderate. MR regressed in 874 (44.1%) patients and persisted in 1,109 (55.9%) after TAVR. Four-year mortality was higher for those with MR persistence, but not for those with MR regression after TAVR, compared with nonsignificant baseline MR (43.8% vs. 35.1% vs. 32.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; p = 0.008; HR: 1.02; p = 0.383, respectively). New York Heart Association functional class III to IV after TAVR was more common in those with MR persistence vs. regression (14.4% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001). In a propensity score–matched cohort (91 patients' pairs), with significant residual MR after TAVR who did or did not undergo staged mitral intervention, staged intervention was associated with a better functional class through 1 year of follow-up (82.4% vs. 33.3% New York Heart Association functional class I or II; p < 0.001), and a numerically lower 4-year mortality, which was not statistically significant (64.6% vs. 37.5%; HR: 1.66; p = 0.097). Risk stratification based on improvement in MR and symptoms after TAVR can identify patients at increased mortality risk after TAVR. These patients may benefit from a staged transcatheter mitral intervention, but this requires further proof from future studies. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274). [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions.Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs).Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year.Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003).Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on valve leaflet displacement when deployed within bioprosthetic surgical valves and, thereby, risk for coronary obstruction. Coronary obstruction is a potentially devastating complication during valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Strategies such as provisional stenting and intentional bioprosthetic valve leaflet laceration have been developed to mitigate this risk. Alternatively, the use of a THV that retracts the bioprosthetic leaflet away from the coronary ostium may prevent coronary obstruction. A 25-mm J-Valve, a 26-mm Evolut Pro, and a 23-mm JenaValve were implanted into both a 25-mm Trifecta surgical valve and a 25-mm Mitroflow surgical valve. A 23-mm and a 26-mm SAPIEN 3 were deployed into the Trifecta and Mitroflow, respectively. Displacement of the surgical valve leaflets (retraction vs. expansion) was measured with implantation of each THV by measuring displacement angle and maximal displacement distance. Within both the Trifecta and Mitroflow valves, implantation of the J-Valve and JenaValve resulted in retraction of the surgical valve leaflets, and placement of the Evolut Pro and SAPIEN 3 resulted in tubular expansion of the surgical valve leaflets. There were significant differences in displacement angles and distances between both the J-Valve and JenaValve and the SAPIEN 3 and Evolut Pro (p < 0.0001). ViV implantation with new-generation THVs that directly interact with bioprosthetic valve leaflets results in surgical valve leaflet retraction. This might mitigate the risk for coronary obstruction in selected cases of ViV transcatheter aortic valve replacement and also facilitate coronary reaccess after ViV TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) carries a risk of Vascular Complications (VCs) at the access site. The currently used measures for assessing the risk for VCs are not accurate enough, and sometimes fail to predict them. We therefore aimed to examine whether Iliofemoral artery lumen volume (IFV) assessment with 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT) predicts VCs after transfemoral TAVR. Methods We identified 45/560 trans-femoral TAVR patients with VC, then performed nearest neighbor 1:1 matching for patients with no VC, matching for age, sex, TAVR year, valve size and type, closure-device, sheath size and peripheral vascular disease. IFV, minimal diameter, tortuosity, and calcification were measured, and their diagnostic performance assessed. Results The final analysis included 45 patients with and 45 patients without VCs. The two groups were well balanced. For all patients, median IFV was 8.65 ml (IQR 6.5–11.95). IFV was lower in patients with VC compared to patients without VC: 7.10 ml (IQR 5.4–9.0) vs. 10.10 ml (IQR 8.3–13.3), p < 0.001. VC risk had marginal association with iliofemoral artery minimal diameter (p = 0.06) and no association with tortuosity or calcification. Compared with other measurements, IFV had the most favorable receiver operating curve for the prediction of VC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78. Conclusion IFV measurement using 3-dimensional CT is significantly associated with VCs in transfemoral TAVR patients and might be superior to currently accepted parameters. IFV should be further studied among extended cohorts of TAVR treated patients as a novel tool for VC risk assessment prior to transfemoral TAVR. Since currently used parameters for predicting vascular complications (VCs) after transfemoral TAVR are not accurate enough, we aimed to investigate whether Iliofemoral artery lumen volume (IFV) measurement by 3D CT might be used as a screening tool. Included were 45 patients with VCs and 45 matched patients with no VC. IFV was significantly lower in patients with VC compared to patients without VC and had the most favorable receiver operating curve for the prediction of VC compared to currently accepted methods. Thus, this novel 3D based measurement may aid in the preoperative assessment before transfemoral TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]