Conradi Lenard, Silaschi Miriam, Seiffert Moritz, Lubos Edith, Blankenberg Stefan, Reichenspurner Hermann, Schaefer Ulrich, Treede Hendrik
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Dec;150(6):1557-65, 1567.e1-3; discussion 1565-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.065. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) is emerging as a novel treatment option for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses. We report our cumulative experience using 6 types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in all anatomic positions.
Seventy-five consecutive patients (74.1 ± 12.9 years, 50.7% male (38/75), logEuroSCORE I 26.2% ± 17.8%, STS-PROM 8.8% ± 7.4%) receiving ViV procedures from 2008 to 2014 were included for analysis. Data were prospectively gathered and retrospectively analyzed.
ViV was performed in aortic (72.0%, 54/75), mitral (22.7%, 17/75), tricuspid (2.7%, 2/75), and pulmonary (2.7%, 2/75) positions. THVs used were Edwards SAPIEN (XT)/SAPIEN3 (52.0%, 39/75), Medtronic Core Valve/Core Valve Evolut(R) (34.7%, 26/75), St Jude Portico (4.0%, 3/75), Boston Scientific Lotus (4.0%, 3/75), Jena Valve (2.7%, 2/75), and Medtronic Engager (2.7%, 2/75). Interval from index procedure to ViV was 9.3 ± 4.9 years. Access was transapical in 53.3% (40/75), transfemoral (transarterial or transvenous) in 42.7% (32/75), transaortic in 2.7% (2/75), and transjugular in 1.3% (1/75). ViV was successful in 97.3% (73/75) with 2 patients requiring sequential THV implantation for initial malpositioning. Overall immediate procedural (≤72 hours) and all-cause 30-day mortality were 2.7% (2/75) and 8.0% (6/75). Corresponding values after aortic ViV were 1.9% (1/54) and 5.6% (3/54). No periprocedural strokes or cases of coronary obstruction occurred. Paravalvular leakage was less than or equal to mild in all cases. After aortic ViV, gradients were max/mean 34.1 ± 14.2/20.1 ± 7.1 mm Hg and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.5 ± 1.4 cm(2). Corresponding values after mitral ViV were gradients max/mean 14.2 ± 8.2/4.7 ± 3.1 mm Hg and EOA 2.4 ± 0.9 cm(2).
ViV can be performed in all anatomic positions with acceptable hemodynamic and clinical outcome in high-risk patients. Increasing importance of ViV can be anticipated considering growing use of surgical bioprostheses.
经导管瓣中瓣植入术(ViV)正逐渐成为生物假体功能恶化患者的一种新型治疗选择。我们报告了在所有解剖位置使用6种经导管心脏瓣膜(THV)的累积经验。
纳入2008年至2014年接受ViV手术的75例连续患者(年龄74.1±12.9岁,男性占50.7%(38/75),欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统I评分26.2%±17.8%,胸外科医师协会预测死亡率8.8%±7.4%)进行分析。数据前瞻性收集并回顾性分析。
ViV手术在主动脉瓣位置进行了72.0%(54/75),二尖瓣位置22.7%(17/75),三尖瓣位置2.7%(2/75),肺动脉瓣位置2.7%(2/75)。使用的THV包括爱德华兹SAPIEN(XT)/SAPIEN3(52.0%,39/75),美敦力Core Valve/Core Valve Evolut(R)(34.7%,26/75),圣犹达Portico(4.0%,3/75),波士顿科学Lotus(4.0%,3/75),耶拿瓣膜(2.7%,2/75),和美敦力Engager(2.7%,2/75)。首次手术至ViV的间隔时间为9.3±4.9年。53.3%(40/75)的患者采用经心尖入路,42.7%(32/75)采用经股动脉(经动脉或经静脉)入路,2.7%(2/75)采用经主动脉入路,1.3%(1/75)采用经颈静脉入路。ViV手术成功率为97.3%(73/75),2例患者因初始位置不佳需要序贯THV植入。总体即时手术(≤72小时)和全因30天死亡率分别为2.7%(2/75)和8.0%(6/75)。主动脉瓣ViV后的相应值分别为1.9%(1/54)和5.6%(3/54)。围手术期未发生中风或冠状动脉阻塞病例。所有病例的瓣周漏均小于或等于轻度。主动脉瓣ViV后,最大/平均梯度为34.1±14.2/20.1±7.1 mmHg,有效瓣口面积(EOA)为1.5±1.4 cm²。二尖瓣ViV后的相应值为最大/平均梯度14.2±8.2/4.7±3.1 mmHg,EOA为2.4±0.9 cm²。
ViV可在所有解剖位置进行,高危患者的血流动力学和临床结果可接受。考虑到外科生物假体的使用增加,ViV的重要性可能会不断提高。