Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: A selection change?

Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery (Impact Factor: 0.55). 09/2012; 27(3):355-361. DOI: 10.5935/1678-9741.20120062
Source: PubMed


Aortic valve replacement for bioprosthesis dysfunction is a procedure involving considerable risk. In some cases, mortality is high and may contraindicate the procedure. Minimally invasive transcatheter aortic "valve-in-valve" implant appears to be an alternative, reducing morbidity and mortality. The objective is to evaluate aortic valve-in-valve procedure using Braile Inovare prosthesis.

The Braile Inovare prosthesis, transcatheter, expandable balloon, was used in 14 cases. Average EuroSCORE was 42.9%. All patients had double aortic bioprosthesis dysfunction. Procedures were performed in a surgical hybrid environment under echocardiographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Using left minithoracotomy prostheses were implanted through the ventricular apex under high-frequency ventricular pacing. Serial clinical and echocardiographic controls were performed. Follow-up ranged 1-30 months.

Correct prosthetic deployment was obtained in all cases. There was no conversion. There was no operative mortality. The 30-day mortality was 14.3% (two cases). Ejection fraction increased significantly after the 7th postoperative day. Aortic gradient significantly reduced. The residual aortic regurgitation was not present. There were no vascular complications or complete atrioventricular block.

The transcatheter "valve-in-valve" procedure for bioprosthesis dysfunction is safe with low morbidity. This possibility may change prosthesis choice during the first aortic valve replacement, favoring bioprostheses.

7 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an emerging technology for the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). First reported in 2002, TAVR has made remarkable progress in the past decade with completion of major randomized clinical trials, multiple observational registries, and evolution of several new devices. This article is a brief introductory overview of the TAVR procedure, devices, trials and registries, and newer developments in the field. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Medicine Volume 65 is January 14, 2014. Please see for revised estimates.
    Annual review of medicine 10/2013; 65. DOI:10.1146/annurev-med-010813-102251 · 12.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an alternative to open surgery in those deemed high risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of this emerging procedure. We have examined available literature to provide an overview of valve-in-valve implantation using transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in aortic, mitral, pulmonary, tricuspid positions. Methods A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Results Only 61 studies met full criteria and were included the review. This included 31 studies reporting transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation, mitral valve-in-valve implantation (13 studies), tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (12 studies), and pure native aortic valve regurgitation (nine studies). One of the limitations of this review is that most of the studies included were case reports, together with some case series. Conclusion Valve-in-valve implantation can be considered as an acceptable alternative to conventional open heart surgery for elderly high-risk surgical patients with bioprosthetic degeneration. Long-term follow-up of treated patients will be necessary to establish the true role of valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic degeneration. Patients should be evaluated on an individual basis until outcomes are proven in large cohort studies or randomised trials.
    Heart, Lung and Circulation 11/2014; 23(11). DOI:10.1016/j.hlc.2014.06.001 · 1.44 Impact Factor

Similar Publications


7 Reads
Available from