TY - JOUR
T1 - Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses
AU - Landes, Uri
AU - Dvir, Danny
AU - Schoels, Wolfgang
AU - Tron, Christophe
AU - Ensminger, Stephan
AU - Simonato, Matheus
AU - Schäfer, Ulrich
AU - Bunc, Matjaz
AU - Aldea, Gabriel
AU - Cerillo, Alfredo
AU - Windecker, Stephan
AU - Marzocchi, Antonio
AU - Andreas, Martin
AU - Amabile, Nicolas
AU - Webb, John
AU - Kornowski, Ran
N1 - Funding Information:
M. Andreas reports being a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and receiving scientific grants from Edwards, Abbott and Medtronic. J. Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. R. Kornowski reports institutional research grants from Medtronic. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Publisher Copyright:
© Europa Digital & Publishing 2019. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/5/20
Y1 - 2019/5/20
N2 - Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation performance in rapid deployment (ViVr) vs. conventional (ViVc) surgical heart valves. Methods and results: A multicentre registry was developed as part of the VIVID international registry. A total of 30 ViVr patients (Perceval, n=24, ATS 3f Enable™, n=5, and the INTUITY, n=1) were evaluated and compared with 2,288 ViVc patients. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to adjust further for bias. Compared with ViVc, ViVr patients presented twice as early after surgical heart valve (SHV) implantation (55.2±36.1 vs. 118.4±57.7 months, p<0.001), were more commonly female (82.8% vs. 41.3%, p<0.001), and had shorter body stature and reduced body weight (p<0.05 for both) prior to PS. Implantation was successful in all ViVr cases and, compared with ViVc, was associated with equally favourable haemodynamic outcomes (mean gradient: 14.6±8.3 vs. 16.2±8.9 mmHg, p=0.356; regurgitation ≥mild: 3.7% vs. 5.2%, p=0.793). Periprocedural complication rates were similar and low in both groups. There was no coronary obstruction event in any ViVr case; one patient (3.6%) died during one year of follow-up. Conclusions: ViVr appears effective, safe and associated with favourable haemodynamic outcome.
AB - Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation performance in rapid deployment (ViVr) vs. conventional (ViVc) surgical heart valves. Methods and results: A multicentre registry was developed as part of the VIVID international registry. A total of 30 ViVr patients (Perceval, n=24, ATS 3f Enable™, n=5, and the INTUITY, n=1) were evaluated and compared with 2,288 ViVc patients. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to adjust further for bias. Compared with ViVc, ViVr patients presented twice as early after surgical heart valve (SHV) implantation (55.2±36.1 vs. 118.4±57.7 months, p<0.001), were more commonly female (82.8% vs. 41.3%, p<0.001), and had shorter body stature and reduced body weight (p<0.05 for both) prior to PS. Implantation was successful in all ViVr cases and, compared with ViVc, was associated with equally favourable haemodynamic outcomes (mean gradient: 14.6±8.3 vs. 16.2±8.9 mmHg, p=0.356; regurgitation ≥mild: 3.7% vs. 5.2%, p=0.793). Periprocedural complication rates were similar and low in both groups. There was no coronary obstruction event in any ViVr case; one patient (3.6%) died during one year of follow-up. Conclusions: ViVr appears effective, safe and associated with favourable haemodynamic outcome.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068228768&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752
DO - 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:85068228768
VL - 15
SP - 37
EP - 43
JO - EuroIntervention
JF - EuroIntervention
SN - 1774-024X
IS - 1
ER -
