6 research outputs found

    Hemodynamics after ViV in small bioprostheses

    No full text
    Aims : The valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure has become a valuable alternative for the treatment of failed surgical bioprostheses (BP) in high-risk patients. However, in small BP, the clinical outcomes have been suboptimal due to high post-procedural gradients. We aimed to examine the effect of size and position of the self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) CoreValve on the haemodynamics of ViV within small BP. Methods and results : Sizes 23 and 26 mm of the CoreValve were implanted in sizes 19 and 21 mm of three BP models: Trifecta, Mitroflow and Epic Supra. The THV was tested in three positions -normal (manufacturer recommendation), low (4 mm below normal) and high (4 mm above normal)- using a pulse duplicator. Haemodynamics were assessed by Doppler echocardiography and flowmeter, and GOA with a high-speed camera. Higher implantation was associated with lower residual gradients (normal position: -9%, high: -25% versus low). High position was, however, associated with increased risk of regurgitation in the Mitroflow and embolisation in the Epic Supra. Using a 26 mm THV instead of a 23 mm was associated with larger EOAs in the Trifecta, smaller in the Mitroflow, and increased risk of embolisation in the Epic Supra. Conclusions : Supra-annular positioning of the CoreValve THV is associated with improved post-ViV haemodynamics in small surgical BP. The haemodynamic outcomes are highly dependent on the model and size of surgical BP

    Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Comparing Different Transcatheter Heart Valve Designs: An Ex Vivo Bench Study

    No full text
    Objectives: The authors assessed the effect of valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) followed by bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF), testing different transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs in an ex vivo bench study. Background: Bioprosthetic valve fracture can be performed to improve residual transvalvular gradients following VIV TAVR. Methods: The authors evaluated VIV TAVR and BVF with the SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) and ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, Massachusetts) THVs. A 20-mm and 23-mm S3 were deployed in a 19-mm and 21-mm Mitroflow (Sorin Group USA, Arvada, Colorado), respectively. A small ACURATE neo was deployed in both sizes of Mitroflow tested. VIV TAVR samples underwent multimodality imaging, and hydrodynamic evaluation before and after BVF. Results: A high implantation was required to enable full expansion of the upper crown of the ACURATE neo and allow optimal leaflet function. Marked underexpansion of the lower crown of the THV within the surgical valve was also observed. Before BVF, VIV TAVR in the 19-mm Mitroflow had high transvalvular gradients using either THV design (22.0 mm Hg S3, and 19.1 mm Hg ACURATE neo). After BVF, gradients improved and were similar for both THVs (14.2 mm Hg S3, and 13.8 mm Hg ACURATE neo). The effective orifice area increased with BVF from 1.2 to 1.6 cm with the S3 and from 1.4 to 1.6 cm with the ACURATE neo. Before BVF, VIV TAVR with the ACURATE neo in the 21-mm Mitroflow had lower gradients compared with S3 (11.3 mm Hg vs. 16 mm Hg). However, after BVF valve gradients were similar for both THVs (8.4 mm Hg ACURATE neo vs. 7.8 mm Hg S3). The effective orifice area increased from 1.5 to 2.1 cm with the S3 and from 1.8 to 2.2 cm with the ACURATE neo. Conclusions: BVF performed after VIV TAVR results in improved residual gradients. Following BVF, residual gradients were similar irrespective of THV design. Use of a small ACURATE neo for VIV TAVR in small (≤21 mm) surgical valves may be associated with challenges in achieving optimum THV position and expansion. BVF could be considered in selected clinical cases
    corecore