Computer-Assisted Transcatheter Heart Valve Implantation in Valve-in-Valve Procedures

Abstract

Objective

Valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly being considered as an alternative to redo surgery for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves in patients with excessive reoperative risk. The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of computer guidance in transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation during ViV procedures.

Methods

Preprocedural electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography–scan images were processed using semiautomatic segmentation of the degenerated bioprosthesis’ radiopaque landmarks and of the ascending aorta. Virtual three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions were created. A virtual plane was subsequently added to the 3D reconstructions, indicating the optimal landing plane of the THV inside the tissue valve. Within a hybrid operating theater, a 3D/2D registration was used to superimpose the 3D reconstructions, while dynamic tracking was allowed to maintain the superimposition onto the fluoroscopic images. The THV was afterward implanted according to the optimal landing plane. Projection of the ascending aorta and the coronary arteries was used to assess the risk of coronary ostia obstruction.

Results

Between January 2014 and October 2014, nine patients underwent aortic ViV procedures in our institution. Among those nine patients, five procedures were retrospectively evaluated as a validation step using the proposed method. The mean (SD) superimposition error was 1.1 (0.75) mm. Subsequently, two live cases were prospectively carried out using our approach, successfully implanting the THV inside the degenerated tissue valve.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of a computer-guided implantation of THV in ViV procedures. Moreover, it suggests that augmented reality may increase the reliability of THV implantation inside degenerated bioprostheses through better reproducibility.

Keywords

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)Valve-in-valve Image-based guidance Imaging Computer guidance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ruel

, Chan

, Bédard

Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation. 2007; 116(suppl I): 1294–1300.

Azadani

A.N.

, Tseng

E.E.

Transcatheter heart valves for failing bioprostheses: state-of-the-art review of valve-in-valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4: 621–628.

Jones

J.M.

, O'Kane

, Gladstone

D.J.

Repeat heart valve surgery: risk factors for operative mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001; 122: 913–918.

Luciani

, Nasso

, Anselmi

Repeat valvular operations: bench optimization of conventional surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006; 81: 1279–1283.

Toggweiler

, Humphries

K.H.

, Lee

5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61: 413–419.

Webb

J.G.

, Wood

D.A.

, Ye

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010; 121: 1848–1857.

Wenaweser

, Buellesfeld

, Gerckens

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic regurgitation in degenerated bioprosthesis: the first valve in valve procedure using the Corevalve revalving system. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007; 70: 760–764.

Gurvitch

, Cheung

, Ye

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58: 2196–2209.

Cerillo

A.G.

, Chiaramonti

, Murzi

Transcatheter valve in valve implantation for failed mitral and tricuspid bioprosthesis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 78: 987–995.

10.

Dvir

, Webb

, Brecker

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation. 2012; 126: 2335–2344.

11.

Eggebrecht

, Schäfer

, Treede

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4: 1218–1227.

12.

Bapat

V.N.

, Attia

R.Q.

, Condemi

Fluoroscopic guide to an ideal implant position for Sapien XT and CoreValve during a valve-in-valve procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6: 1186–1194.

13.

Cheung

, Webb

J.G.

, Barbanti

5-year experience with transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. JAm Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61: 1759–1766.

14.

Gurvitch

, Cheung

, Bedogni

Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprostheses. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 77: 439–444.

15.

Markelj

, Tomazevic

, Likar

A review of 3D/2D registration methods for image-guided interventions. Med Image Anal. 2012; 16: 642–661.

16.

Jaffray

, Kupelian

, Djemil

Review of image-guided radiation therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007; 7: 89–103.

17.

Promayon

, Fouard

, Bailet

Using CamiTK for rapid prototyping of interactive computer assisted medical intervention applications. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013; 2013: 4933–4936.

18.

, Liao

, Liu

A framework for automatic, accurate, and fast 2D/3D registration applied to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures. In: Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2012 9th IEEE International Symposium.

19.

Karar

M.E.

, John

, Holzhey

Model-updated image-guided minimally invasive off-pump transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2011; 14: 275–282.

20.

Yushkevich

P.A.

, Piven

, Hazlett

H.C.

User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage. 2006; 31: 1116–1128.

21.

Zitová

, Flusser

Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vis Comput. 2003; 21: 977–1000.

22.

Nguyen

D.L.

, Garreau

, Auffret

Intraoperative tracking of aortic valve plane. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013; 2013: 4378–4381.

23.

Kaladji

, Daoudal

, Clochard

Interest of fusion imaging and modern navigation tools with hybrid rooms in endovascular aortic procedures. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2015; [Epub ahead of print].

24.

Rajani

, Attia

, Condemi

Multidetector computed tomography sizing of bioprosthetic valves: guidelines for measurement and implications for valve-in-valve therapies. Clin Radiol. 2016; 71: e41–e48.

25.

Ruggieri

V.G.

, Haigron

, Wang

CT-scan images preprocessing and segmentation to improve bioprosthesis leaflets morphological analysis. Med Hypotheses. 2013; 81: 86–93.

26.

Furukawa

, Tanemoto

Current status and future perspectives of prosthetic valve selection for aortic valve replacement. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 62: 19–23.

27.

Dvir

Treatment of small surgical valves: clinical considerations for achieving optimal results in valve-in-valve procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8: 2034–2036.