Raschpichler Matthias, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Curzen Nick, Wilbring Manuel, Dubois Christoph, Lam Kayan, Faerber Gloria, Nagel Jana, Thiele Holger, Borger Michael A
Leipzig Heart Center, University Clinic of Cardiac Surgery, Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Jun;105(7):1711-1718. doi: 10.1002/ccd.31492. Epub 2025 Mar 27.
Little is known about the clinical and hemodynamic outcome of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) for failed Trifecta surgical aortic bioprotheses.
We aimed to compare outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR into failed Trifecta vs. ViV-TAVR into a standard aortic bioprosthetic valve with internally mounted leaflets (Epic, Abbott, Minneapolis, MN).
Data of consecutive patients who underwent ViV-TAVR into either failed Trifecta or Epic bioprostheses between October 2015 and June 2020 were retrospectively collected within the International Trifecta and Epic Valve-in-Valve Registry, and analyzed for a primary composite outcome of 30-day mortality and/or coronary obstruction (CO), defined as: (1) CO resulting in myocardial infarction and/or cardiogenic shock, or (2) CO requiring emergent coronary intervention.
A total of 76 patients (49 Trifecta, 27 Epic) with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range [IQR] 75.0; 82.0]) and a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons-score of 5.4 (IQR 4.0; 9.8) were identified. Coronary protection techniques were more frequently performed in Trifecta than Epic patients (29.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.01). The primary composite outcome was observed in three Trifecta versus five Epic cases (6.1% vs. 20%, p = 0.1), which included one case of CO following ViV-TAVR into Epic requiring stenting. Increased rates of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) following valve-in-Epic were found (41.7% vs. 75%, p = 0.08). Survival at a median of 365 days was 86.2% and did not differ between groups (log-rank p = 0.37).
Compared to a stented prosthesis without increased risk of CO, ViV-TAVR into Trifecta prostheses can be performed with low risk of CO and acceptable short-term clinical outcomes. As the rate of post-ViV PPM is substantial for both prostheses, careful patient selection is warranted. (NCT05389631).
对于经导管主动脉瓣置换术(ViV-TAVR)治疗失败的三联手术主动脉生物瓣膜的临床和血流动力学结果知之甚少。
我们旨在比较经导管主动脉瓣置换术(ViV-TAVR)治疗失败的三联瓣膜与治疗带有内部安装瓣叶的标准主动脉生物瓣膜(Epic,雅培,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州)的ViV-TAVR的结果。
在国际三联瓣膜和Epic瓣膜内瓣膜注册中心回顾性收集2015年10月至2020年6月期间接受ViV-TAVR治疗失败的三联瓣膜或Epic生物瓣膜的连续患者的数据,并分析30天死亡率和/或冠状动脉阻塞(CO)的主要复合结局,定义为:(1)导致心肌梗死和/或心源性休克的CO,或(2)需要紧急冠状动脉干预的CO。
共确定76例患者(49例三联瓣膜,27例Epic瓣膜),中位年龄80岁(四分位间距[IQR]75.0;82.0),胸外科医师协会中位评分5.4(IQR 4.0;9.8)。与Epic瓣膜患者相比,三联瓣膜患者更频繁地采用冠状动脉保护技术(29.6%对0%,p = 0.01)。在3例三联瓣膜患者和5例Epic瓣膜患者中观察到主要复合结局(6.1%对20%,p = 0.1),其中包括1例在ViV-TAVR治疗Epic瓣膜后需要置入支架的CO病例。发现Epic瓣膜置入后患者-人工瓣膜不匹配(PPM)发生率增加(41.7%对75%,p = 0.08)。中位365天的生存率为86.2%,两组之间无差异(对数秩p = 0.37)。
与CO风险未增加的带支架人工瓣膜相比,对三联瓣膜进行ViV-TAVR时CO风险较低,短期临床结局可接受。由于两种人工瓣膜ViV术后PPM发生率都很高,因此需要谨慎选择患者。(NCT05389631)