Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves and Failed Annuloplasty Rings

  • Sung-Han Yoon
  • Brian K Whisenant
  • Sabine Bleiziffer
  • Victoria Delgado
  • Niklas Schofer
  • Lena Eschenbach
  • Buntaro Fujita
  • Rahul Sharma
  • Marco Ancona
  • Ermela Yzeiraj
  • Stefano Cannata
  • Colin Barker
  • James E Davies
  • Antonio H Frangieh
  • Florian Deuschl
  • Tomaz Podlesnikar
  • Masahiko Asami
  • Abhijeet Dhoble
  • Anthony Chyou
  • Jean-Bernard Masson
  • Harindra C Wijeysundera
  • Daniel J Blackman
  • Rajiv Rampat
  • Maurizio Taramasso
  • Enrique Gutierrez-Ibanes
  • Tarun Chakravarty
  • Guiherme F Attizzani
  • Tsuyoshi Kaneko
  • S Chiu Wong
  • Horst Sievert
  • Fabian Nietlispach
  • David Hildick-Smith
  • Luis Nombela-Franco
  • Lenard Conradi
  • Christian Hengstenberg
  • Michael J Reardon
  • Albert Markus Kasel
  • Simon Redwood
  • Antonio Colombo
  • Saibal Kar
  • Francesco Maisano
  • Stephan Windecker
  • Thomas Pilgrim
  • Stephan M Ensminger
  • Bernard D Prendergast
  • Joachim Schofer
  • Ulrich Schaefer
  • Jeroen J Bax
  • Azeem Latib
  • Raj R Makkar

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral valve replacement and repair.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of TMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) and annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring [ViR]).

METHODS: From the TMVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of mitral ViV and ViR were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 248 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.9 ± 6.8% underwent TMVR. Transseptal access and the balloon-expandable valve were used in 33.1% and 89.9%, respectively. Compared with 176 patients undergoing ViV, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 ± 17.4% vs. 55.3 ± 11.1%; p < 0.001). Overall technical and device success rates were acceptable, at 92.3% and 85.5%, respectively. However, compared with the ViV group, the ViR group had lower technical success (83.3% vs. 96.0%; p = 0.001) due to more frequent second valve implantation (11.1% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.008), and lower device success (76.4% vs. 89.2%; p = 0.009) due to more frequent reintervention (16.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.03). Mean mitral valve gradients were similar between groups (6.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.17), whereas the ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation moderate or higher (19.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.003). Furthermore, the ViR group had more frequent life-threatening bleeding (8.3% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.03), acute kidney injury (11.1% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.03), and subsequent lower procedural success (58.3% vs. 79.5%; p = 0.001). The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the ViR group compared with the ViV group (28.7% vs. 12.6%; log-rank test, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, failed annuloplasty ring was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.34 to 5.43; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS: The TMVR procedure provided acceptable outcomes in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses or failed annuloplasty rings, but mitral ViR was associated with higher rates of procedural complications and mid-term mortality compared with mitral ViV.

Bibliographical data

Original languageEnglish
ISSN0735-1097
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29.08.2017

Comment Deanary

Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed 28838360