Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves - PubMed (original) (raw)
. 2014 Jul;312(2):162-70.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.7246.
John G Webb 1, Sabine Bleiziffer 2, Miralem Pasic 3, Ron Waksman 4, Susheel Kodali 5, Marco Barbanti 1, Azeem Latib 6, Ulrich Schaefer 7, Josep Rodés-Cabau 8, Hendrik Treede 9, Nicolo Piazza 10, David Hildick-Smith 11, Dominique Himbert 12, Thomas Walther 13, Christian Hengstenberg 14, Henrik Nissen 15, Raffi Bekeredjian 16, Patrizia Presbitero 17, Enrico Ferrari 18, Amit Segev 19, Arend de Weger 20, Stephan Windecker 21, Neil E Moat 22, Massimo Napodano 23, Manuel Wilbring 24, Alfredo G Cerillo 25, Stephen Brecker 26, Didier Tchetche 27, Thierry Lefèvre 28, Federico De Marco 29, Claudia Fiorina 30, Anna Sonia Petronio 31, Rui C Teles 32, Luca Testa 33, Jean-Claude Laborde 26, Martin B Leon 5, Ran Kornowski 34; Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry Investigators
Affiliations
- PMID: 25005653
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.7246
Free article
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves
Danny Dvir et al. JAMA. 2014 Jul.
Free article
Abstract
Importance: Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed.
Objective: To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves.
Design, setting, and participants: Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves.
Main outcomes and measures: Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class.
Results: Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008).
Conclusions and relevance: In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.
Similar articles
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry.
Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, Bleiziffer S, Hildick-Smith D, Colombo A, Descoutures F, Hengstenberg C, Moat NE, Bekeredjian R, Napodano M, Testa L, Lefevre T, Guetta V, Nissen H, Hernández JM, Roy D, Teles RC, Segev A, Dumonteil N, Fiorina C, Gotzmann M, Tchetche D, Abdel-Wahab M, De Marco F, Baumbach A, Laborde JC, Kornowski R. Dvir D, et al. Circulation. 2012 Nov 6;126(19):2335-44. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.104505. Epub 2012 Oct 10. Circulation. 2012. PMID: 23052028 - Use of transcatheter heart valves for a valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthesis: technical considerations and results.
Bapat V, Attia R, Redwood S, Hancock J, Wilson K, Young C, Thomas M. Bapat V, et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Dec;144(6):1372-9; discussion 1379-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.104. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012. PMID: 23140962 - Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for patients with degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valves.
Dvir D, Barbanti M, Tan J, Webb JG. Dvir D, et al. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2014 Jan;39(1):7-27. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2013.10.001. Epub 2013 Oct 24. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2014. PMID: 24331437 Review. - Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve-in-Valve Implantation for Failed Surgical Bioprosthetic Valves: An 8-Year Single-Center Experience.
Ye J, Cheung A, Yamashita M, Wood D, Peng D, Gao M, Thompson CR, Munt B, Moss RR, Blanke P, Leipsic J, Dvir D, Webb JG. Ye J, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Nov;8(13):1735-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Oct 14. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015. PMID: 26476608 - What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement?
Tourmousoglou C, Rao V, Lalos S, Dougenis D. Tourmousoglou C, et al. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Jun;20(6):837-43. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv037. Epub 2015 Mar 8. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015. PMID: 25754372 Review.
Cited by
- Changes in the practice of cardiology: therapies at the forefront of science.
Loh JP, Poh KK. Loh JP, et al. Singapore Med J. 2016 Jul;57(7):344-6. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2016115. Singapore Med J. 2016. PMID: 27440236 Free PMC article. No abstract available. - Assessing Potential Risks of Future Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients.
Miyawaki N, Ishizu K, Shirai S, Nakano K, Fukushima T, Ko E, Tsuru Y, Tashiro H, Nakamura M, Tabata H, Morofuji T, Morinaga T, Hayashi M, Isotani A, Ohno N, Kakumoto S, Ando K. Miyawaki N, et al. JACC Asia. 2023 Oct 31;4(1):25-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2023.09.004. eCollection 2024 Jan. JACC Asia. 2023. PMID: 38222260 Free PMC article. - Single-center real-world data and technical considerations from 100 consecutive patients treated with the Perceval aortic bioprosthesis.
Müller H, Szalkiewicz P, Benedikt P, Ratschiller T, Schachner B, Schröckenstein S, Zierer A. Müller H, et al. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Jul 12;11:1417617. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1417617. eCollection 2024. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024. PMID: 39070555 Free PMC article. - Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement.
Dahou A, Mahjoub H, Pibarot P. Dahou A, et al. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2016 Nov;18(11):67. doi: 10.1007/s11936-016-0488-0. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2016. PMID: 27687067 Review. - Long term follow up of percutaneous treatment for degenerated Mitroflow prosthesis with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Pascual I, Almendárez M, Álvarez Velasco R, Adeba A, Hernández-Vaquero D, Lorca R, Díaz R, Alperi A, Cubero-Gallego H, Rozado J, Morís C, Avanzas P. Pascual I, et al. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Aug;8(15):955. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.120. Ann Transl Med. 2020. PMID: 32953755 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources