OPEN IN READ APP
JOURNAL ARTICLE

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

Moritz Seiffert, Lenard Conradi, Stephan Baldus, Malgorzata Knap, Johannes Schirmer, Olaf Franzen, Dietmar Koschyk, Thomas Meinertz, Hermann Reichenspurner, Hendrik Treede
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2012, 143 (3): 617-24
22169448

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.

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
22169448
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"