Matched Comparison of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Failed Aortic Surgical Bioprosthesis

نویسندگان

  • Sami Alnasser
  • Asim N. Cheema
  • Matheus Simonato
  • Marco Barbanti
  • Jeremy Edwards
  • Ran Kornowski
  • Eric Horlick
  • Harindra C. Wijeysundera
  • Luca Testa
  • Francesco Bedogni
  • Hafid Amrane
  • Thomas Walther
  • Marc Pelletier
  • Azeem Latib
  • Jean - Claude Laborde
  • David Hildick - Smith
  • Won - Keun Kim
  • Didier Tchetche
  • Marco Agrifoglio
  • Jan - Malte Sinning
  • Ad J. van Boven
  • Joëlle Kefer
  • Christian Frerker
  • Nicolas M. van Mieghem
  • Axel Linke
  • Stephen Worthley
  • Anita Asgar
  • Carmelo Sgroi
  • Mina Aziz
  • Haim D. Danenberg
  • Marino Labinaz
  • Ganesh Manoharan
  • Anson Cheung
  • John G. Webb
  • Danny Dvir
چکیده

Background—Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV). Methods and Results—Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with selfexpanding THV devices were analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events. St. Jude Medical Portico versus Medtronic CoreValve were compared in a 1:2 fashion after propensity score matching. A total of 162 patients, Portico(n=54) and CoreValve(n=108) based valve-in-valve procedures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, 79±8.2 years; 60% women; mean STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score 8.1±5.5%). Postimplantation, CoreValve was associated with a larger effective orifice area (1.67 versus 1.31 cm; P=0.001), lower mean gradient (14±7.5 versus 17±7.5 mm Hg; P=0.02), and lower core laboratory–adjudicated moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (4.2% versus 13.7%; P=0.04), compared with Portico. Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, second THV requirement, or coronary obstruction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Survival and stroke rates at 30 days were similar, but overall mortality at 1 year was higher among patients treated with Portico compared with CoreValve (22.6% versus 9.1%; P=0.03). Conclusions—In this first matched comparison of THVs for valve-in-valve implantations, Portico and CoreValve demonstrated differences in postprocedural hemodynamics and long-term clinical outcomes. Although this could be related to THV design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require further evaluation. (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004392. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004392.)

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Matched Comparison of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Failed Aortic Surgical Bioprosthesis: Insights From the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry (VIVID).

BACKGROUND Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV). METHODS AND RESULTS Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with self-expanding...

متن کامل

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at extreme risk for surgery. BACKGROUND Untreated severe aortic stenosis is a progressive disease with a poor prognosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is a potentially effec...

متن کامل

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for patients with degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valves.

Most surgical heart valves currently implanted are bioprosthetic tissue valves. Such valves deteriorate with time, eventually presenting with either stenosis or regurgitation. Reoperation, the current standard of care for failed valves, carries significant risk in terms of both morbidity and mortality. Implantation of a transcatheter valve inside a failed surgical valve (valve-in-valve procedur...

متن کامل

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

During the past decades, the only effective treatment option for severe, symptomatic, aortic valve stenosis was surgical aortic valve replacement. More than 10 years ago, Alain Cribier performed the first transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Since 2007, CE-mark certified aortic valves are available for TAVI. This new technology rapidly achieved a very high clinical acceptance as a tr...

متن کامل

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.

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 t...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017