Prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of a normally functioning prosthetic valve is too small in relation to the patient's body size. The effect of PPM on outcomes and valve durability have gained credibility, making this an important possibly preventable risk factor. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) generally has a lower incidence of PPM than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Current surgical literature and randomized trials show an association between severe PPM and mortality in patients with SAVR but there is less evidence for an association with TAVR. Differences in the incidence of PPM may be related to the methods and cutoffs for measuring mismatch. This review will discuss the current state of field and propose standardization of measurement methods which may more accurately risk stratify patients.

Effective orifice diameter: a new sizing parameter of surgical valve prostheses to inform valve selection.

Background: The labeled sizes of surgical valve prostheses and their discordance with the physical internal valve orifice sizes has long been a controversy in the cardiac surgery community, leading many to believe it to be a contributing factor in prosthesis-patient mismatch following valvular replacement surgery. In an attempt to address this issue, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 5840-2:2021 standard for surgical valve prostheses recommends that a new sizing parameter, namely, the effective orifice diameter, be provided in labeling by all manufacturers as an indicator of the true flow-passing capacity of a prosthetic valve. Methods: The ISO Cardiac Valves Working Group conducted a multi-laboratory round-robin study to investigate whether the effective orifice diameter of a prosthetic surgical valve could be derived repeatably and reproducibly through steady forward-flow testing. A total of seven valve models, each with multiple sizes, were tested, including a mechanical heart valve and multiple biological heart valves. Results: The round-robin study confirmed that the steady forward-flow test had good intra-laboratory repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility in deriving the effective orifice diameters of surgical valve prostheses. On average, among the participating laboratories, the experimentally derived effective orifice diameter of a prosthetic heart valve was 3-12 mm smaller than its labeled size. Conclusions: The effective orifice diameter provides better characterization of the hydrodynamic characteristics of a surgical valve prosthesis and can be derived using a validated steady forward-flow test method. This new sizing parameter will soon be adopted by surgical valve manufacturers and provided in device labeling to inform valve selection by surgeons.

Haemodynamic and clinical outcomes at 5 years according to predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Although the impact of predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPMP) on outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement is well established, studies on PPMP in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited. This study investigated the effects of PPMp on haemodynamic and 5-year clinical outcomes after TAVR. METHODS/MATERIALS: We analysed 1733 patients who underwent TAVR. PPMp was defined using two different methods: 1) normal reference values of the effective orifice area for each valve type and size indexed to body surface area (PPMp1; n = 1733) and 2) reference values for aortic annulus area or perimeter assessed with pre-procedural computed tomography indexed to body surface area (PPMp2; n = 1227). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure at 5 years. RESULTS: The incidence of PPMp1 was 11.7 % and 0.8 % in moderate and severe cases, respectively. PPMp2 was classified as either moderate (3.8 %) or severe (0 %). Rates of residual mean aortic gradient ≥20 mmHg significantly increased depending on PPMp1 severity (no PPMp1: 3.1 % vs. moderate PPMp1: 26.8 % vs. severe PPMp1: 53.9 %, p < 0.0001) and PPMp2 (no PPMp2: 4.1 % vs. moderate PPMp2: 12.8 %, p = 0.0049). Neither of PPMP methods were associated with the composite outcome in total cohort; however, PPMP1 was significantly related to worse clinical outcomes at 5 years among patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.87; 95 % CI: 1.02-3.43). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of PPMP on TAVR clinical outcomes may not be negligible in patients with low LVEF.

Routine postdilation after 23 mm Sapien 3 Ultra implantation in the aortic position.

BACKGROUND: Residual transprosthetic gradient (TG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) may be due to suboptimal valve expansion. AIMS: To compare hemodynamics after TAVR with small BEV according to postdilation strategy. METHODS: This observational, retrospective cohort study included 184 consecutive patients from a single center treated with 23 mm Sapien 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences) BEV implantation in the aortic position and enrolled between January 2020 and April 2023. Patients treated with routine postdilation (RP, n = 73) were compared to patients treated according to local standard practice (SP, n = 111). Primary endpoint was 30-day mean TG. Secondary endpoints were incidence of 30-day prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), technical success and device success. RESULTS: Thirty-day mean TG was lower in RP versus SP (12.3 ± 4.6 mmHg vs. 14.1 ± 5.7 mmHg, p = 0.031), and incidence of PPM was less common with RP versus SP (47.3% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.006). Technical success (98.6% vs. 99.1%, p = 0.637) and device success (93.1% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.330) did not differ between groups. Differences in 30-day mean TG were driven by patients at normal flow (12.1 ± 4.0 mmHg vs. 15.0 ± 5.5 mmHg, p = 0.014), while no differences were evident among patients at low flow (12.5 ± 5.5 mmHg vs. 11.7 ± 5.5 mmHg, p = 0.644). RP decreased height and increased width of BEV, and a linear regression established that final BEV width could predict 30-day mean TG (r = -0.6654, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RP after TAVR with small BEV was associated with more favorable forward-flow hemodynamics than SP.

Self-expandable transcatheter valve is a potentially useful option for a failing small surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve.

OBJECTIVE: Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve bio-prosthesis has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement. However, the correlation between the size of the failing surgical aortic valve and the occurrence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after trans-catheter implantation is still controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and report the results in Japanese patients. METHODS: Thirty patients who underwent trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed with results from echocardiography and computed tomography. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 84.5 ± 4.8 years. The mean body surface area was 1.42 ± 0.13 m2. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the size of the failing bio-prosthesis: small (≦19 mm) and large (> 19 mm). There were no significant differences in mean pressure gradient (12.2 ± 4.0 mmHg vs. 11.1 ± 1.2 mmHg; p = 0.54) and effective orifice area index (1.00 ± 0.26 cm2/m2 vs. 0.99 ± 0.25 cm2/m2; p = 0.92) between the groups at 6 months after trans-catheter implantation. The incidence of moderate (38.5% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.59) and severe (0% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.33) prosthesis-patient mismatch was equivalent. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test p-value = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Trans-catheter implantation inside a failing small aortic valve did not increase the frequency of prosthesis-patient mismatch in this Japanese cohort.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Women With Small Annuli at Low or Intermediate Surgical Risk.

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery in women with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli. We evaluated 2-year clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement to understand acute valve performance and early and midterm clinical outcomes. This post hoc analysis pooled women enrolled in the randomized, prospective, multicenter Evolut Low Risk and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) intermediate risk trials. Women with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk who had a computed tomography-measured annular perimeter of ≤72.3 mm were included and underwent self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR or surgery. The primary end point was 2-year all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate. The study included 620 women (323 TAVR, 297 surgery) with a mean age of 78 years. At 2 years, the all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 6.5% for TAVR and 8.0% for surgery, p = 0.47. Pacemaker rates were 20.0% for TAVR and 8.3% for surgery, p <0.001. The mean effective orifice area at 2 years was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2 for TAVR and 1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 for surgery and the mean gradient was 8.0 ± 4.1 versus 12.7 ± 6.0 mm Hg, respectively (both p <0.001). Moderate or severe patient-prothesis mismatch at discharge occurred in 10.9% of patients who underwent TAVR and 33.2% of patients who underwent surgery, p <0.001. In conclusion, in women with small annuli, the clinical outcomes to 2 years were similar between self-expanding, supra-annular TAVR and surgery, with better hemodynamics in the TAVR group and fewer pacemakers in the surgical group.

Fish swim bladders as valve leaflets enhance the durability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an effective therapy for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, calcification-induced limited durability restricts its application. Fish swim bladders (FSB), which are resistant to calcific degeneration, offer a viable solution to this challenge. In this study, we developed a new TAVR device using FSB as the valve leaflet. Furthermore, the in vitro durability, in vivo performance, and size selection of this TAVR device were assessed by an experimental study and finite element analysis. A self-expandable TAVR device was fabricated by suturing the FSB films into a 23 mm nitinol alloy frame. Further, hemodynamic performance, such as effective orifice area, transvalvular pressure difference and regurgitant fraction, the durability was tested by the pulsatile flow test and accelerated fatigue test, according to the ISO 5840-3. The effect of release size on hydrodynamic performance was also investigated. Finally, the in vivo performance of the TAVR device were examined using a porcine implantation model. The results showed that the strength of the FSB films satisfied the requirements for valve leaflets. The hemodynamic performance of the FSB TAVR device met the requirements of ISO 5840-3 standards. After 400 million cycles, the FSB showed no fiber loss, torn, perforation, or other valve failure phenomena. In porcine models, the devices were well-positioned, functioned well with no stenosis immediately after the operation. Collectively, we successfully developed a TAVR device with FSB as valve leaflets that exhibited good fatigue resistance. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The source of material for the leaflets of commercialized biological heart valves (BHVs) is mainly bovine pericardium, but this material suffers the following problems: large and uneven thickness of the material, the presence of α-Gal and Neu5Gc antigens, and the susceptibility to structural valve degradation (SVD). New material for BHVs leaflets is rarely reported. In this study, we prepared a transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) and performed long-term in vitro and short-term in vivo studies using fish swim bladder (FSB) as the leaflets. The study confirmed that FSB TAV device can complete 400 million fatigue tests and maintain the good morphology of the leaflets, and that it still maintains good functionality after a certain amount of compression, indicating that FSB is a promising material for leaflets.

Improved Hemodynamics With Self-Expanding Compared to Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Annulus Patients: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) pose a challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement because of the potential for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study aimed to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of self-expandable valve (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA. All patients who underwent TAVI for severe native aortic stenosis with a SAA between January 2018 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study from a single center. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics. Bioprosthesis valve dysfunction was based on modified Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. A total of 1,170 TAVI procedures were performed between 2018 and 2022. After applying the exclusion criteria, 332 patients reported a SAA at computed tomography scan, and the matching created 109 balanced pairs. Echocardiographic data at discharge showed higher mean transvalvular gradients (p <0.001), higher grades of mitral regurgitation (p = 0.029), and lower ejection fraction (p <0.043) in BEVs than SEVs. At follow-up, significant differences favoring the SEV group regarding bioprosthesis valve dysfunction were observed (p = 0.002), especially in terms of severe PPM (p = 0.046) and at least moderate structural valve deterioration (p = 0.040). In conclusion, TAVI in patients with SAA using a BEV was associated with lower valve areas, higher mean pressure gradients, and PPM (including severe) than a SEV. Short- and midterm all-cause and cardiac-related mortality did not differ between the 2 groups. Future randomized studies with extended follow-ups are warranted to validate these outcomes.

Do postoperative hemodynamic parameters add prognostic value for mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement?

Background: Although various hemodynamic parameters to assess prosthetic performance are available, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined exclusively by effective orifice area (EOA) index thresholds. Adjusting for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM), we aimed to explore the added value of postoperative hemodynamic parameters for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 5 years after aortic valve replacement. Methods: Data were obtained from the Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial, a multicenter prospective cohort study examining the performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis. Candidate predictors were assessed at the first follow-up visit; patients who had no echocardiography data, withdrew consent, or died before this visit were excluded. Candidate predictors included peak jet velocity, mean pressure gradient, EOA, predicted and measured EOA index, Doppler velocity index, indexed internal prosthesis orifice area, and categories for PPM. The performance of Cox models was investigated using the c-statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI), among other tools. Results: A total of 1118 patients received the study valve, of whom 1022 were eligible for the present analysis. In univariable analysis, STS PROM was the sole significant predictor of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.55). When extending the STS PROM with single hemodynamic parameters, neither the c-statistics nor the NRIs demonstrated added prognostic value compared to a model with STS PROM alone. Similar findings were observed when multiple hemodynamic parameters were added. Conclusions: The STS PROM was found to be the main predictor of patient prognosis. The additional prognostic value of postoperative hemodynamic parameters for the prediction of all-cause mortality was limited.

Echocardiographic parameters associated with less reverse left ventricular remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve implant in subjects with prosthesis patient mismatch.

BACKGROUND: Transaortic valve implant (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Some patients develop prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) after TAVI. It is challenging to determine which patients are at risk for clinical deterioration. METHODS: We retrospectively measured echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular (LV) morphology and function, prosthetic aortic valve effective orifice area (iEOA) and hemodynamics in 313 patients before and 1 year after TAVI. Our objective was to compare the change in echocardiographic parameters associated with left ventricular reverse modeling in subjects with and without PPM. Our secondary objective was to evaluate echo parameters associated with PPM and the relationship to patient functional status and survival post-TAVI. RESULTS: We found that 82 (26.2%) of subjects had moderate and 37 (11.8%) had severe PPM post-TAVI. There was less relative improvement in LVEF with PPM (1.9 ± 21.3% vs. 8.2 + 30.1%, p = .045). LV GLS also exhibited less relative improvement in those with PPM (13.4 + 34.1% vs. 30.9 + 73.3%, p = .012). NYHA functional class improved in 84.3% of subjects by one grade or more. Echocardiographic markers of PPM were worse in those without improvement in NYHA class (mean AT/ET was .29 vs. .27, p = .05; DVI was .46 vs. .51, p = .021; and iEOA was .8 cm/m2 vs. .9 cm/m2 , p = .025). There was no association with PPM and survival. CONCLUSIONS: There was no improvement in LVEF and less improvement in LV GLS in those with PPM post-TAVI. Echocardiographic markers of PPM were present in those with lack of improvement in NYHA functional class.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA. METHODS: This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

Case report: Self-expanding transcatheter valve implantation (Acurate Neo 2) in a very small native aortic annulus.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and intermediate-to-high surgical risk. The presence of a small aortic annulus (SAA) has been associated with a higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) when surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) is performed. TAVR might be a treatment option offering better hemodynamics with a lower incidence of PPM. When a severe AS with a SAA is treated, TAVR-related risk as the coronary obstruction and the annulus rupture, must be also prevented. We present a case of a TAVR in a very small aortic annulus; to our knowledge, this is the smallest native aortic annulus treated percutaneously in a tricuspid stenotic aortic valve with a Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) Acurate Neo 2.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter implantation of contemporary balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves in small aortic annuli.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of clinical impact of PPM after TAVI is conflicting and might vary according to the type of valve implanted. AIMS: To assess the clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BEV) and self-expandable valves (SEV) in patients with small annuli. METHODS: TAVI-SMALL 2 enrolled 628 patients in an international retrospective registry, which included patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm2 ) treated with transfemoral TAVI at 16 high-volume centers between 2011 and 2020. Analyses were performed comparing patients with less than moderate (n = 452), moderate (n = 138), and severe PPM (n = 38). Primary endpoint was incidence of all-cause mortality. Predictors of all-cause mortality and PPM were investigated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 380 days (interquartile range: 210-709 days), patients with severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, had an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with less than moderate PPM (log-rank p = 0.046). Severe PPM predicted all-cause mortality in patients with BEV (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-21.2) and intra-annular valves (IAVs, HR: 4.23, 95% CI: 1.28-14.02), and it did so with borderline significance in the overall population (HR: 2.89, 95% CI: 0.95-8.79). Supra-annular valve (SAV) implantation was the only predictor of severe PPM (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with small aortic annuli and severe PPM after TAVI have an increased risk of all-cause mortality at early term follow-up, especially after IAV or BEV implantation. TAVI with SAV protected from severe PPM.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch and Aortic Root Enlargement: Indications, Techniques and Outcomes.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined as implanting a prosthetic that is insufficiently sized for the patient receiving it. PPM leads to high residual transvalvular gradients post-aortic valve replacement and consequently results in left ventricular dysfunction, morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. Younger patients and patients with poor preoperative left ventricular function are more vulnerable to increased mortality secondary to PPM. There is debate over the measurement of valvular effective orifice area (EOA) and variation exists in how manufacturers report the EOA. The most reliable technique is using in vivo echocardiographic measurements to create tables of predicted EOAs for different valve sizes. PPM can be prevented surgically in patients at risk through aortic root enlargement (ARE). Established techniques include the posterior enlargement through Nicks and Manouguian procedures, and aortico-ventriculoplasty with the Konno-Rastan procedure, which allows for a greater enlargement but carries increased surgical risk. A contemporary development is the Yang procedure, which uses a Y-shaped incision created through the non- and left-coronary cusp commissure, undermining the nadirs of the non- and left-coronary cusps. Early results are promising and demonstrate an ability to safely increase the aortic root by up to two to three sizes. Aortic root enlargement thus remains a valuable and safe tool in addressing PPM, and should be considered during surgical planning.

Early outcomes of the "Chimney" commando procedure in the small aortic and mitral annuli.

Background: Commando procedure, the surgical replacement of the mitral and aortic valves combined with reconstruction of the fibrosa fibrous body, is a technical challenge in patients with small aortic and mitral annuli. In this study, we evaluated the safety and early outcomes of the "Chimney" modality of the Commando procedure, in patients with small aortic and mitral annuli, after prior valve surgery, using a self-assembled valved conduit. Methods: From April 2021 to April 2022, 30 consecutive cases of the "Chimney" Commando procedure, with a self-assembled valved conduit and other combined cardiac procedures, were fully performed for re-operative patients with small aortic roots. Data were obtained through a medical record review, at the Asian Heart Hospital in Wuhan, China. Results: The patient's mean age was 52.7 ± 13.53 years, with 93.3% females. All patients had a previous heart valve surgery, 90% of which had double valve replacement (DVR). Hospital death occurred in 3.3% (n = 1) of the patients, due to malignant arrhythmias and multiorgan failure. Postoperative echocardiogram exams showed that the sizes of the aortic and mitral valve prostheses were 24.23 ± 1.60 mm and 28.33 ± 1.21 mm, respectively. All patients had intact intervalvular fibrosa (IVF) repair and no patient had any aberration in the left heart chamber communication. With the exception of one postoperative sick sinus syndrome and one re-sternotomy for bleeding, there were no significant postoperative complications, such as mortality, renal failure requiring ongoing dialysis, or mediastinitis. Echocardiography exams in the sixth postoperative month showed that the mean gradients of the aortic and mitral valves were 16.26 ± 6.44 mmHg and 11.24 ± 4.90 mmHg, respectively. Conclusions: In comparison with the standard Commando operation, the early outcomes and safety of the "Chimney" Commando procedure proved to be a feasible therapeutic option for patients with small aortic and mitral annuli, after prior valve operations. This approach enables the enlargement of the aortic and mitral annuli and the implantation of the necessary valve prosthesis.

Updates on bioprosthetic valve fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter valve replacement has emerged as a feasible and potentially safer treatment option for failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (BSVs). However, the VIV procedure carries an inherent risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) by either fracturing or stretching the surgical valve ring allows for a more optimal expansion of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and beneficial effects on post-implant valve hemodynamics and perhaps long-term valve durability. AREAS COVERED: This is an expanded overview of BVF and BVR to facilitate VIV transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with detailed discussion on lessons learned from bench testing studies and translation to procedural technique and clinical experience incorporating up-to-date evidence and experience with BVF in non-aortic positions. EXPERT OPINION: BVF and BVR improve valve hemodynamics following VIV-TAVR, with timing of BVF being an important determinant of procedure safety and efficacy; however, longer-term data are needed to determine long-term clinical outcomes including mortality, valve hemodynamics, and valve reintervention. In addition, further research will be needed to understand the safety and efficacy of these procedures in any new generation BSV or THV and to better define the role of these techniques in the pulmonic, mitral, and tricuspid positions.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry.

BACKGROUND: Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown. METHODS: From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis-patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis-patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.

5-Year Outcomes With Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annuli.

BACKGROUND: Self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are associated with better echocardiographic hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable THVs and are considered preferable in patients with small annuli. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare 5-year outcomes between self-expanding vs balloon-expandable THVs in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small annuli. METHODS: Consecutive severe AS patients with an aortic valve annulus area <430 mm2 who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either the CoreValve Evolut (Medtronic) or SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) THV between 2012 and 2021 were enrolled from the Bern TAVI registry. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for baseline differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 723 patients were included, and propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of both groups with no significant difference. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower transvalvular gradient (8.0 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 12.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), a larger effective orifice area (1.81 ± 0.46 cm2 vs 1.49 ± 0.42 cm2; P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% vs 51.8%; P < 0.001) than balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, there were no significant differences in mortality (50.4% vs 39.6%; P = 0.269) between groups. Disabling stroke occurred more frequently in patients with a self-expanding THV than those with a balloon-expandable THV (6.6% vs 0.6%; P = 0.030). Similar results were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the Bern TAVI registry and the nationwide Swiss TAVI registry. CONCLUSIONS: The echocardiographic hemodynamic advantage of self-expanding THVs was not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with balloon-expandable THVs up to 5 years in patients with small annuli. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Effect of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is common following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of PPM on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and reintervention following bioprosthetic SAVR. METHODS: This observational nationwide cohort study from SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) and other national registers included all patients who underwent primary bioprosthetic SAVR in Sweden from 2003 to 2018. PPM was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and aortic valve reintervention. Regression standardization was used to account for intergroup differences and to estimate cumulative incidence differences. RESULTS: We included 16,423 patients (no PPM: 7,377 [45%]; moderate PPM: 8,502 [52%]; and severe PPM: 544 [3%]). After regression standardization, the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality at 10 years was 43% (95% CI: 24%-44%) in the no PPM group compared with 45% (95% CI: 43%-46%) and 48% (95% CI: 44%-51%) in the moderate and severe PPM groups, respectively. The survival difference at 10 years was 4.6% (95% CI: 0.7%-8.5%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.1%-3.3%) in no vs severe PPM and no vs moderate PPM, respectively. The difference in heart failure hospitalization at 10 years was 6.0% (95% CI: 2.2%-9.7%) in severe vs no PPM. There was no difference in aortic valve reintervention in patients with or without PPM. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing grades of PPM were associated with long-term mortality, and severe PPM was associated with increased heart failure. Moderate PPM was common, but the clinical significance may be negligible because the absolute risk differences in clinical outcomes were small.