Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated bioprostheses

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated bioprostheses

AU - Seiffert, Moritz

AU - Conradi, Lenard

AU - Baldus, Stephan

AU - Knap, Malgorzata

AU - Schirmer, Johannes

AU - Franzen, Olaf

AU - Koschyk, Dietmar

AU - Meinertz, Thomas

AU - Reichenspurner, Hermann

AU - Treede, Hendrik

N1 - Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is evolving as an alternative to reoperative valve replacement in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses. Nevertheless, hemodynamic performance is limited by the previously implanted xenograft. We report our experience with patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after valve-in-valve implantation in the aortic position.METHODS: Eleven patients (aged 79.3 ± 6.1 years) received transapical implantation of a balloon-expandable pericardial heart valve into a degenerated bioprosthesis (size, 23.9 ± 1.6 mm; range, 21-27 mm) in the aortic position. All patients were considered high risk for surgical valve replacement (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, 31.8% ± 24.1%). Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2), determined by discharge echocardiography.RESULTS: Severe PPM was evident in 5 patients (group 1) and absent in 6 patients (group 2). Mean transvalvular gradients decreased from 29.2 ± 15.4 mm Hg before implantation to 21.2 ± 9.7 mm Hg at discharge (group 1) and from 28.2 ± 9.0 mm Hg before implantation to 15.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg at discharge (group 2). Indexed effective orifice area increased from 0.5 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.6 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) and from 0.6 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.8 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2). Aortic regurgitation decreased from grade 2.0 ± 1.1 to 0.4 ± 0.5 overall. No differences in New York Heart Association class improvement or survival during follow-up were observed. One patient required reoperation for symptomatic PPM 426 days after implantation.CONCLUSIONS: Valve-in-valve implantation can be performed in high-risk surgical patients to avoid reoperation. However, PPM frequently occurs, making adequate patient selection crucial. Small bioprostheses (<23 mm) should be avoided. Implantation into 23-mm xenografts can be recommended only for patients with a body surface area less than 1.8 m(2). Larger prostheses seem to carry a lower risk for PPM. Although no delay in clinical improvement was seen at short-term, 1 PPM-related surgical intervention raises concern regarding long-term performance.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is evolving as an alternative to reoperative valve replacement in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses. Nevertheless, hemodynamic performance is limited by the previously implanted xenograft. We report our experience with patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after valve-in-valve implantation in the aortic position.METHODS: Eleven patients (aged 79.3 ± 6.1 years) received transapical implantation of a balloon-expandable pericardial heart valve into a degenerated bioprosthesis (size, 23.9 ± 1.6 mm; range, 21-27 mm) in the aortic position. All patients were considered high risk for surgical valve replacement (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, 31.8% ± 24.1%). Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2), determined by discharge echocardiography.RESULTS: Severe PPM was evident in 5 patients (group 1) and absent in 6 patients (group 2). Mean transvalvular gradients decreased from 29.2 ± 15.4 mm Hg before implantation to 21.2 ± 9.7 mm Hg at discharge (group 1) and from 28.2 ± 9.0 mm Hg before implantation to 15.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg at discharge (group 2). Indexed effective orifice area increased from 0.5 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.6 ± 0.1 cm(2)/m(2) and from 0.6 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2) to 0.8 ± 0.3 cm(2)/m(2). Aortic regurgitation decreased from grade 2.0 ± 1.1 to 0.4 ± 0.5 overall. No differences in New York Heart Association class improvement or survival during follow-up were observed. One patient required reoperation for symptomatic PPM 426 days after implantation.CONCLUSIONS: Valve-in-valve implantation can be performed in high-risk surgical patients to avoid reoperation. However, PPM frequently occurs, making adequate patient selection crucial. Small bioprostheses (<23 mm) should be avoided. Implantation into 23-mm xenografts can be recommended only for patients with a body surface area less than 1.8 m(2). Larger prostheses seem to carry a lower risk for PPM. Although no delay in clinical improvement was seen at short-term, 1 PPM-related surgical intervention raises concern regarding long-term performance.

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Aortic Valve/surgery

KW - Aortic Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging

KW - Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging

KW - Bioprosthesis

KW - Cardiac Catheterization/adverse effects

KW - Female

KW - Germany

KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis

KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects

KW - Humans

KW - Kaplan-Meier Estimate

KW - Male

KW - Prosthesis Design

KW - Prosthesis Failure

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Risk Assessment

KW - Risk Factors

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Ultrasonography

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.11.004

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 22169448

VL - 143

SP - 617

EP - 624

JO - J THORAC CARDIOV SUR

JF - J THORAC CARDIOV SUR

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 3

ER -