The Ten Commandments of Aortic Valve-in-Valve

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Isaacs

AJ.

Shuhaiber

Salemi

et al. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149: 1262–1269.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25791947

Brown

JM.

O’Brien

SM.

et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 82–90.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015

19154908

Forcillo

Pellerin

Perrault

et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 486–493.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.03.032

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684486

Dvir

Bourguignon

Otto

et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation 2018; 137: 388–399.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030729

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29358344

Dvir

Webb

JG.

Bleiziffer

et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 2014; 312: 162–170.doi:10.1001/jama.2014.7246

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25005653

Bapat

Mydin

Chadalavada

et al. A guide to fluoroscopic identification and design of bioprosthetic valves: a reference for valve-in-valve procedure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 81: 853–861.doi:10.1002/ccd.24419

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22431472

Duncan

Moat

Simonato

et al. Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative stentless versus stented bioprostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1256–1263.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.02.036

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31202944

Blanke

Soon

Dvir

et al. Computed tomography assessment for transcatheter aortic valve in valve implantation: the Vancouver approach to predict anatomical risk for coronary obstruction and other considerations. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2016; 10: 491–499.doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2016.09.004

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27697505

PCR . Valve-in-Valve aortic APP, https://www.pcronline.com/PCRPublications/PCR-mobile-apps/Valve-in-Valve-Aortic-app, Accessed 28 July 2020.

10.

Duncan

Davies

Di Mario

et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failing surgical aortic stentless bioprosthetic valves: a single-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150: 91–98.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.021

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25869089

11.

Bleiziffer

Simonato

Webb

et al. Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves. Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 2731–2742.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa544

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32592401

12.

Landes

Dvir

Schoels

et al. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative rapid deployment bioprostheses. EuroIntervention 2019; 15: 37–43.doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00752

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30777843

13.

Kappetein

AP.

Head

SJ.

Généreux

et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42: S45–S60.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs533

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23026738

14.

Pibarot

Simonato

Barbanti

et al. Impact of pre-existing prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival following aortic valve-in-valve procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: 133–141.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2017.08.039

29348008

15.

Dumesnil

JG.

Pibarot

. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: an update. Curr Cardiol Rep 2011; 13: 250–257.doi:10.1007/s11886-011-0172-7

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21350829

16.

Flameng

Herregods

M-C.

Vercalsteren

et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 2010; 121: 2123–2129.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.901272

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439787

17.

Thubrikar

MJ.

Deck

JD.

Aouad

et al. Role of mechanical stress in calcification of aortic bioprosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1983; 86: 115–125.doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(19)39217-7

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865456

18.

Ribeiro

HB.

Rodés-Cabau

Blanke

et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: insights from the VIVID registry. Eur Heart J 2018; 39: 687–695.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx455

29020413

19.

Tang

GHL.

Komatsu

Tzemach

et al. Assessing the risk for coronary obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the need to perform BASILICA: the VIVID classification. EuroIntervention. Epub ahead of print 4 May 2020. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00067.

20.

Amat-Santos

IJ.

Messika-Zeitoun

Eltchaninoff

et al. Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from a large multicenter registry. Circulation 2015; 131: 1566–1574.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014089

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25753535

21.

Lam

DH.

Itani

Dvir

. Evaluation of failed prosthetic valves in the valve-in-valve era: potential for utilizing positron emission tomography/computed tomography to recognize infective endocarditis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 94: 863–869.doi:10.1002/ccd.28185

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30856285

22.

Seiffert

Treede

Schofer

et al. Matched comparison of next- and early-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve implantations in failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. EuroIntervention 2018; 14: e397–e404.doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00546

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29688174

23.

Alnasser

Cheema

AN.

Simonato

et al. Matched comparison of self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for the treatment of failed aortic surgical bioprosthesis. Circulation 2017; 10: e004392.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004392

24.

Martin

Sun

. Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve and surgical bioprosthetic valve durability: a fatigue simulation study. J Biomech 2015; 48: 3026–3034.doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.031

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26294354

25.

Azadani

AN.

Reardon

Simonato

et al. Effect of transcatheter aortic valve size and position on valve-in-valve hemodynamics: an in vitro study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 153: 1303–1315.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.12.057

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28283233

26.

Simonato

Azadani

AN.

Webb

et al. In vitro evaluation of implantation depth in valve-in-valve using different transcatheter heart valves. EuroIntervention 2016; 12: 909–917.doi:10.4244/EIJV12I7A149

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27639744

27.

Simonato

Webb

Kornowski

et al. Transcatheter replacement of failed bioprosthetic valves. Circulation 2016; 9: e003651.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003651

28.

Simonato

Webb

Bleiziffer

et al. Current generation balloon-expandable transcatheter valve positioning strategies during aortic valve-in-valve procedures and clinical outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1606–1617.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.05.057

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31439340

29.

Nielsen-Kudsk

JE.

Christiansen

EH.

Terkelsen

et al. Fracturing the ring of small Mitroflow bioprostheses by high-pressure balloon predilatation in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8: e002667.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002667

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26208503

30.

Allen

KB.

Chhatriwalla

AK.

Saxon

et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture: technical insights from a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 158: 1317–1328.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.01.073

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30857820

31.

Chhatriwalla

AK.

Allen

KB.

Saxon

et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture improves the hemodynamic results of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10: e005216.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005216

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698291

32.

Allen

KB.

Chhatriwalla

AK.

Cohen

et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture to facilitate transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104: 1501–1508.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.04.007

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28669505

33.

Khan

JM.

Dvir

Greenbaum

et al. Transcatheter laceration of aortic leaflets to prevent coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: concept to first-in-human. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: 677–689.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.247

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29622147

34.

Khan

JM.

Greenbaum

AB.

Babaliaros

et al. The BASILICA trial: prospective multicenter investigation of intentional leaflet laceration to prevent TAVR coronary obstruction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1240–1252.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.03.035

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31202947

35.

Kitamura

Majunke

Holzhey

et al. Systematic use of intentional leaflet laceration to prevent TAVI-induced coronary obstruction: feasibility and early clinical outcomes of the BASILICA technique. EuroIntervention. Epub ahead of print 30 June 2020. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00386.

36.

Komatsu

Mackensen

GB.

Aldea

et al. Bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction. Part 1: how to evaluate patients for BASILICA. EuroIntervention 2019; 15: 47–54.doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00057

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30967362

37.

Komatsu

Mackensen

GB.

Aldea

et al. Bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction. Part 2: how to perform BASILICA. EuroIntervention 2019; 15: 55–66.doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00056

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30888958

38.

Mercanti

Rosseel

Neylon

et al. Chimney stenting for coronary occlusion during TAVR: insights from the Chimney Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13: 751–761.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2020.01.227

32192695

39.

Chakravarty

Søndergaard

Friedman

et al. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study. Lancet 2017; 389: 2383–2392.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30757-2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28330690

40.

Jose

Sulimov

DS.

El-Mawardy

et al. Clinical bioprosthetic heart valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: incidence, characteristics, and treatment outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10: 686–697.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2017.01.045

28385406

41.

Latib

Naganuma

Abdel-Wahab

et al. Treatment and clinical outcomes of transcatheter heart valve thrombosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8: e001779.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001779

25873727

42.

Del Trigo

Muñoz-Garcia

AJ.

Wijeysundera

et al. Incidence, timing, and predictors of valve hemodynamic deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 644–655.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.097

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26868689

43.

Abdel-Wahab

Simonato

Latib

et al. Clinical valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: e006730.doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.006730

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30571208

44.

Hatoum

Moore

BL.

Maureira

et al. Aortic sinus flow stasis likely in valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 154: 32–43.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.03.053

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28483152

45.

Vahidkhah

Javani

Abbasi

et al. Blood stasis on transcatheter valve leaflets and implications for valve-in-valve leaflet thrombosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104: 751–759.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.02.052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28483152

46.

Brown

ML.

Park

SJ.

Sundt

et al. Early thrombosis risk in patients with biologic valves in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144: 108–111.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.05.032

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21864857

47.

Dangas

GD.

Tijssen

JGP.

Wöhrle

et al. A controlled trial of rivaroxaban after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 120–129.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911425

31733182

48.

De Backer

Dangas

GD.

Jilaihawi

et al. Reduced leaflet motion after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 130–139.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911426

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31733182

49.

Capodanno

Petronio

AS.

Prendergast

et al. Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52: 408–417.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx244

28874031

50.

Bleiziffer

Erlebach

Simonato

et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart 2018; 104: 828–834.doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29352008

51.

Landes

Webb

JG.

De Backer

et al. Repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 75: 1882–1893.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.051

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32327098