Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787701
Original Cardiovascular

Impact of Different Valve-in-Valve Positions on Functional Results of the New Generation of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve

Najla Sadat
1   Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig Holstein Lübeck Campus, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
,
Michael Scharfschwerdt
1   Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig Holstein Lübeck Campus, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
,
Stefan Reichert
2   Department of Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
,
Buntaro Fujita
1   Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig Holstein Lübeck Campus, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
,
Stephan Ensminger
1   Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig Holstein Lübeck Campus, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Objectives Very precise positioning of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) inside the degenerated SAV is a crucial factor for valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure to achieve optimal hemodynamic results. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the impact of implantation depth on functional results after ViV procedures in a standardized in vitro setting.

Methods THV (SAPIEN 3 Ultra 23-mm size) and three SAV models (Magna Ease, Trifecta, and Hancock II—all 21-mm size) were tested at different circulatory conditions in five different positions of the THV (2–6 mm) inside the SAV. Mean pressure gradient (MPG), effective orifice area (EOA), geometric orifice area (GOAmax), and pinwheeling index (PWImean) were analyzed.

Results EOA and MPG of the THV did not differ significantly regarding the position inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II (p > 0.05). However, EOA differed significantly, depending on the position of the THV inside Trifecta (2 vs. 5 mm; p = 0.021 and 2 vs. 6 mm; p < 0.001). The THV presented the highest EOA (2.047 cm2) and the lowest MPG (5.387 mm Hg) inside the Magna Ease, whereas the lowest EOA (1.335 cm2) and the highest MPG (11.876 mm Hg) were shown inside the Hancock II. Additionally, the highest GOAmax and the lowest PWImean of the THV were noticed inside the Magna Ease. The THV showed lower GOAmax and higher PWImean inside the Trifecta when placed in a deeper position.

Conclusion Deep implantation of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Trifecta correlates with impaired functional results. In contrast, the implantation position of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II did not have a significant effect on functional results.

Keywords

aortic valve - TAVI - valve in valve - implantation depth - SAPIEN 3 Ultra - bioprosthetic heart valve

Note

Data presented at the 37th Annual Meeting and Scientific Sessions of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic-Surgery, held on October 4–7, 2023, in Vienna, Austria.


Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 22 March 2024

Accepted: 21 May 2024

Article published online:
18 June 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation 2012; 126 (19) 2335-2344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S. et al; Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry Investigators. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 2014; 312 (02) 162-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Simonato M, Webb J, Kornowski R. et al. Transcatheter replacement of failed bioprosthetic valves: large multicenter assessment of the effect of implantation depth on hemodynamics after aortic valve-in-valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (06) e003651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Abdelghani M, Mankerious N, Allali A. et al. Bioprosthetic valve performance after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in large versus small aortic valve annuli: insights from the CHOICE trial and the CHOICE-Extend Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11 (24) 2507-2518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Scholtz S, Piper C, Horstkotte D. et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve/Evolut R© for degenerated small versus bigger bioprostheses. J Interv Cardiol 2018; 31 (03) 384-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Azadani AN, Reardon M, Simonato M. et al. Effect of transcatheter aortic valve size and position on valve-in-valve hemodynamics: an in vitro study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 153 (06) 1303-1315.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sadat N, Bruhn D, Scharfschwerdt M. et al. Impact of different valve-in-valve positions on the hydrodynamic performance of the newest-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valve. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (05) ezac158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bapat V. Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them. EuroIntervention 2014; 10 (Suppl U): U44-U51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Cardiovascular implants—cardiac valve prostheses—Part 1: General requirements; ISO 5840-1: 2021. Accessed April 8, 2023 at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77033.html2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Cardiovascular implants—Cardiac valve prostheses—Part 2: Surgically implanted heart valve substitutes; ISO 5840-2: 2021. Accessed April 8, 2023 at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77034.html2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Cardiovascular implants—cardiac valve prostheses—Part 3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques; ISO 5840-3: 2021. Accessed April 8, 2023 at: https://www.iso.org/standard/67606.html2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Scharfschwerdt M, Misfeld M, Sievers HH. The influence of a nonlinear resistance element upon in vitro aortic pressure tracings and aortic valve motions. ASAIO J 2004; 50 (05) 498-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Durko AP, Pibarot P, Atluri P. et al; (Task Force Chairman); EACTS–STS–AATS Valve Labelling Task Force. Essential information on surgical heart valve characteristics for optimal valve prosthesis selection: expert consensus document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 59 (01) 54-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Midha PA, Raghav V, Condado JF. et al. Valve type, size, and deployment location affect hemodynamics in an in vitro valve-in-valve model. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (15) 1618-1628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sadat N, Scharfschwerdt M, Schaller T. et al. Functional performance of 8 small surgical aortic valve bioprostheses: an in vitro study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (04) ezac426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Martin C, Sun W. Transcatheter valve underexpansion limits leaflet durability: implications for valve-in-valve procedures. Ann Biomed Eng 2017; 45 (02) 394-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abbasi M, Azadani AN. Leaflet stress and strain distributions following incomplete transcatheter aortic valve expansion. J Biomech 2015; 48 (13) 3663-3671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Meier D, Puehler T, Lutter G. et al. Bioprosthetic valve remodeling in nonfracturable surgical valves: impact on THV expansion and hydrodynamic performance. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (13) 1594-1608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chhatriwalla AK, Allen KB, Depta JP. et al. Outcomes of bioprosthetic valve fracture in patients undergoing valve-in-valve TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (05) 530-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Saxon JT. et al; Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Investigators. Bioprosthetic valve fracture: technical insights from a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 158 (05) 1317-1328.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sadat N, Bruhn D, Scharfschwerdt M. et al. Impact of high-pressure balloon aortic valvuloplasty on the hydrodynamic result after a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2022; 100 (05) 841-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sathananthan J, Fraser R, Hatoum H. et al. A bench test study of bioprosthetic valve fracture performed before versus after transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention. EuroIntervention 2020; 15 (16) 1409-1416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar