Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses

Uri Landes; Danny Dvir; Wolfgang Schoels; Christophe Tron; Stephan Ensminger; Matheus Simonato; Ulrich Schäfer; Matjaz Bunc; Gabriel Aldea; Alfredo Cerillo; Stephan Windecker; Antonio Marzocchi; Martin Andreas; Nicolas Amabile; John Webb; Ran Kornowski

doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses

Uri Landes, Danny Dvir, Wolfgang Schoels, Christophe Tron, Stephan Ensminger, Matheus Simonato, Ulrich Schäfer, Matjaz Bunc, Gabriel Aldea, Alfredo Cerillo, Stephan Windecker, Antonio Marzocchi, Martin Andreas, Nicolas Amabile, John Webb, Ran Kornowski^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Journal	EuroIntervention
Volume	15
Issue number	1
Pages (from-to)	37-43
Number of pages	7
ISSN	1774-024X
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752
Publication status	Published - 20.05.2019

Funding

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.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Access to Document

10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

Cite this

Landes, U., Dvir, D., Schoels, W., Tron, C., Ensminger, S., Simonato, M., Schäfer, U., Bunc, M., Aldea, G., Cerillo, A., Windecker, S., Marzocchi, A., Andreas, M., Amabile, N., Webb, J., & Kornowski, R. (2019). Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses. EuroIntervention, 15(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

@article{acffef89870e414c9a4d59c17219ec4f,

title = "Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses",

abstract = "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{\texttrademark}, 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.",

author = "Uri Landes and Danny Dvir and Wolfgang Schoels and Christophe Tron and Stephan Ensminger and Matheus Simonato and Ulrich Sch{\"a}fer and Matjaz Bunc and Gabriel Aldea and Alfredo Cerillo and Stephan Windecker and Antonio Marzocchi and Martin Andreas and Nicolas Amabile and John Webb and Ran Kornowski",

note = "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: {\textcopyright} Europa Digital \& Publishing 2019. All rights reserved. Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2019",

month = may,

day = "20",

doi = "10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752",

language = "English",

volume = "15",

pages = "37--43",

journal = "EuroIntervention",

issn = "1774-024X",

publisher = "Europa Group",

number = "1",

}

Landes, U, Dvir, D, Schoels, W, Tron, C, Ensminger, S, Simonato, M, Schäfer, U, Bunc, M, Aldea, G, Cerillo, A, Windecker, S, Marzocchi, A, Andreas, M, Amabile, N, Webb, J & Kornowski, R 2019, 'Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses', EuroIntervention, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 37-43. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

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 - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85068228768

U2 - 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

DO - 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85068228768

SN - 1774-024X

VL - 15

SP - 37

EP - 43

JO - EuroIntervention

JF - EuroIntervention

IS - 1

ER -

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses

Abstract

Funding

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this