Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients

Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is quickly becoming a routine and effective means by which to treat degenerated bioprosthetic valves. A known complication of ViV-TAVI is patient-prosthesis mismatch, which substantially affects survival. Bioprosthetic v...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Osama Hallak, MD, Karley Fischer, MD, Shaina Ailawadi, MD, Damian Valencia, MD, Yan Yatsynovich, MD, Raja Nazir, MD, Brian Schwartz, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The Texas Heart Institute 2024-11-01
Series:Texas Heart Institute Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://thij.kglmeridian.com/downloadpdf/view/journals/thij/51/2/article-e238304.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846159326202298368
author Osama Hallak, MD
Karley Fischer, MD
Shaina Ailawadi, MD
Damian Valencia, MD
Yan Yatsynovich, MD
Raja Nazir, MD
Brian Schwartz, MD
author_facet Osama Hallak, MD
Karley Fischer, MD
Shaina Ailawadi, MD
Damian Valencia, MD
Yan Yatsynovich, MD
Raja Nazir, MD
Brian Schwartz, MD
author_sort Osama Hallak, MD
collection DOAJ
description Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is quickly becoming a routine and effective means by which to treat degenerated bioprosthetic valves. A known complication of ViV-TAVI is patient-prosthesis mismatch, which substantially affects survival. Bioprosthetic valve fracture is a method by which to reduce the risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch and post–ViV-TAVI transvalvular gradients. This study sought to determine the safety and efficacy of post–ViV-TAVI bioprosthetic valve fracture. Methods: Patients with a history of surgical aortic valve replacement undergoing ViV-TAVI bioprosthetic valve fracture (N = 25) at the corresponding institution from 2015 to 2022 were cataloged for a retrospective analysis. The implanted transcatheter valves were Medtronic Evolut R, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+. Gradients were assessed before and after implantation and after fracturing using transthoracic echocardiogram. Results: The mean left ventricular ejection fraction of patients who underwent fracturing was 55.04%. The average (SD) peak and mean (SD) transvalvular gradients before the intervention were 68.17 (19.09) mm Hg and 38.98 (14.37) mm Hg, respectively. After ViV-TAVI, the same gradients were reduced to 27.25 (12.27) mm Hg and 15.63 (6.47) mm Hg, respectively. After bioprosthetic valve fracture, the gradients further decreased to 17.59 (7.93) mm Hg and 8.860 (3.334) mm Hg, respectively. The average reduction in peak gradient associated with fracturing was 12.07 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.73-18.41 mm Hg; P = .001). The average reduction in mean gradient associated with valve fracturing was 6.97 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.99-9.74 mm Hg; P < .001). Conclusion: Bioprosthetic valve fracture is a viable option for reducing residual transvalvular gradients after ViV-TAVI and should be considered in patients with elevated gradients (>20 mm Hg) or with concern for patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients who have an unacceptable risk for a redo sternotomy and surgical aortic valve replacement.
format Article
id doaj-art-6b197e2a6321413a9642b66ca9f89719
institution Kabale University
issn 1526-6702
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher The Texas Heart Institute
record_format Article
series Texas Heart Institute Journal
spelling doaj-art-6b197e2a6321413a9642b66ca9f897192024-11-23T08:37:14ZengThe Texas Heart InstituteTexas Heart Institute Journal1526-67022024-11-0151211110.14503/THIJ-23-8304i1526-6702-51-2-e238304Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular GradientsOsama Hallak, MD0Karley Fischer, MD1Shaina Ailawadi, MD2Damian Valencia, MD3Yan Yatsynovich, MD4Raja Nazir, MD5Brian Schwartz, MD61 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kettering Health, Kettering, Ohio2 Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio2 Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio1 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kettering Health, Kettering, Ohio1 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kettering Health, Kettering, Ohio1 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kettering Health, Kettering, Ohio1 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kettering Health, Kettering, OhioBackground: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is quickly becoming a routine and effective means by which to treat degenerated bioprosthetic valves. A known complication of ViV-TAVI is patient-prosthesis mismatch, which substantially affects survival. Bioprosthetic valve fracture is a method by which to reduce the risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch and post–ViV-TAVI transvalvular gradients. This study sought to determine the safety and efficacy of post–ViV-TAVI bioprosthetic valve fracture. Methods: Patients with a history of surgical aortic valve replacement undergoing ViV-TAVI bioprosthetic valve fracture (N = 25) at the corresponding institution from 2015 to 2022 were cataloged for a retrospective analysis. The implanted transcatheter valves were Medtronic Evolut R, Evolut PRO, and Evolut PRO+. Gradients were assessed before and after implantation and after fracturing using transthoracic echocardiogram. Results: The mean left ventricular ejection fraction of patients who underwent fracturing was 55.04%. The average (SD) peak and mean (SD) transvalvular gradients before the intervention were 68.17 (19.09) mm Hg and 38.98 (14.37) mm Hg, respectively. After ViV-TAVI, the same gradients were reduced to 27.25 (12.27) mm Hg and 15.63 (6.47) mm Hg, respectively. After bioprosthetic valve fracture, the gradients further decreased to 17.59 (7.93) mm Hg and 8.860 (3.334) mm Hg, respectively. The average reduction in peak gradient associated with fracturing was 12.07 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.73-18.41 mm Hg; P = .001). The average reduction in mean gradient associated with valve fracturing was 6.97 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.99-9.74 mm Hg; P < .001). Conclusion: Bioprosthetic valve fracture is a viable option for reducing residual transvalvular gradients after ViV-TAVI and should be considered in patients with elevated gradients (>20 mm Hg) or with concern for patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients who have an unacceptable risk for a redo sternotomy and surgical aortic valve replacement.https://thij.kglmeridian.com/downloadpdf/view/journals/thij/51/2/article-e238304.pdftranscatheter aortic valve replacementheart valve prosthesisballoon valvuloplasty
spellingShingle Osama Hallak, MD
Karley Fischer, MD
Shaina Ailawadi, MD
Damian Valencia, MD
Yan Yatsynovich, MD
Raja Nazir, MD
Brian Schwartz, MD
Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients
Texas Heart Institute Journal
transcatheter aortic valve replacement
heart valve prosthesis
balloon valvuloplasty
title Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients
title_full Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients
title_fullStr Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients
title_short Effects of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracturing on Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Transvalvular Gradients
title_sort effects of bioprosthetic valve fracturing on valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation transvalvular gradients
topic transcatheter aortic valve replacement
heart valve prosthesis
balloon valvuloplasty
url https://thij.kglmeridian.com/downloadpdf/view/journals/thij/51/2/article-e238304.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT osamahallakmd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients
AT karleyfischermd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients
AT shainaailawadimd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients
AT damianvalenciamd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients
AT yanyatsynovichmd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients
AT rajanazirmd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients
AT brianschwartzmd effectsofbioprostheticvalvefracturingonvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationtransvalvulargradients