Article

The valve-in-valve technique: Transcatheter treatment of aortic bioprothesis malposition

Division of Cardiology, Ferrarotto Hospital, University of Catania, Italy.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 2.51). 04/2009; 73(5):713-6. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.21896
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Percutaneous aortic valve replacement is an emerging alternative to palliative medical therapy for nonsurgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. The impossibility of repositioning of the current transcatheter prosthesis in case of suboptimal placement is the main limit of these devices. Here, we report on a case of an 84-year-old woman successfully treated with implantation of two 18-Fr CoreValve prosthesis (CoreValve, Irvine, California), because of the suboptimal deployment of the first one, analyzing the procedural technique and the immediate and short-term clinical and hemodynamic results.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To systematically review reported cases of second transcatheter aortic valve deployment within a previously implanted prosthesis (TAV-in-TAV).BackgroundTAV-in-TAV deployment is one of the rescue strategies undertaken due to an unsuccessful or suboptimal transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) result. Currently, there are no clear indications for second valve implantation and outcomes of patients with 2 prostheses deployed remain poorly known.Methods The MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched for cases of TAV-in-TAV implantations of aortic valve.ResultsForty-three articles reporting on TAV-in-TAV deployment were included in the review. The most frequently observed indication for second valve implantation was aortic regurgitation (AR) occurring shortly after TAVI. There was a strong dominance of paravalvular over intravalvular AR, with prosthesis malposition being the main underlying cause of TAVI failure (81% of all identified cases). Perioperative echocardiographic images are crucial in identifying causes of failure and helpful in optimal rescue strategy selection. Success rate of TAV-in-TAV implantation varies from 90% to 100% with mortality rate of 0–14.3% at 30 days. Despite similar aortic valve function in follow-up, TAV-in-TAV may be an independent predictor of increased cardiovascular mortality.ConclusionsTAV-in-TAV implantation is feasible and results in favorable short- and mid-term outcomes in patients with acute failure of TAVI without recourse to open-heart surgery. Further studies are needed to establish algorithm of the management of unsuccessful or suboptimal implantation results.
    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 04/2014; 27(3). DOI:10.1111/joic.12120 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a treatment of choice for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, a significant proportion of these patients do not undergo surgical AVR due to high-risk features. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative for patients with severe AS who are not candidates for open-heart surgery. Since the introduction of TAVI to the medical community in 2002, there has been an explosive growth in procedures. The balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valve and the self-expanding CoreValve ReValving(TM) system contribute the largest patient experience with more than 10,000 patients treated with TAVI to date. Clinical outcomes have stabilized in experienced hands, with 30-day mortality less than 10%. Careful patient selection, growing operator experience, and an integrated multidisciplinary team approach contribute to notable improvement in outcomes. In the first randomized pivotal PARTNER trial, in patients with severe AS not suitable candidates for surgical AVR, TAVI compared with standard therapy, significantly improved survival and cardiac symptoms, but was associated with higher incidence of major strokes and major vascular events. The results of randomized comparison of TAVI with AVR among high-risk patients with AS for whom surgery is a viable option are eagerly awaited to provide further evidence on the applicability of TAVI in these patients.
    10/2010; 1(2):e0016. DOI:10.5041/RMMJ.10016
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Calcific aortic valve disease of the elderly is the most prevalent hemodynamically-significant valvular disease, and the most common lesion requiring valve replacement in industrialized countries. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a less invasive alternative to classical aortic valve replacement that can provide a therapeutic option for high-risk or inoperable patients with aortic stenosis. These devices must be biocompatible, have excellent hemodynamic performance, be easy to insert, be securely anchored without sutures, and be durable, without increased risk of thrombosis or infection. To date, complications are related to the site of entry for insertion, the site of implantation (aorta, coronary ostia, base of left ventricle), and to the structure and design of the inserted device. However, as with any novel technology unanticipated complications will develop. Goals for future development will be to make the devices more effective, more durable, safer, and easier to implant, so as to further improve outcome for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The pathologist participating in research and development, and examination of excised devices will have a critical role in improving outcome for these patients.
    Cardiovascular pathology: the official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology 10/2013; 23(2). DOI:10.1016/j.carpath.2013.10.001 · 1.63 Impact Factor