Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement on a self-expandable nitinol frame due to degeneration of primary bioprosthetic valve cusps. Clinical case of a high-risk surgical female patient

Introduction. We present the clinical observation of a 72-year-old female patient with high surgical risk and structural degeneration of a bioprosthetic aortic valve (AV) cusps in the form of stenosis, accompanied by severe dysfunction. Transcatheter implantation of bioprosthesis Medtronic CoreValve™ Evolut™ R-23 was performed using the valve-in-valve technique. The choice of minimally invasive treatment tactics is substantiated, a preoperative examination algorithm and a specific bioprosthesis model for such intervention are provided. Materials and methods. Imaging – echocardiography (Echo), electrocardiography, multispiral computed tomography, coronary angiography. Bioprosthetic valve calcification and stenosis with critical parameters of the bioprosthetic AV peak pressure gradient according to Echo data were the indications for minimally invasive surgery. Results. Dynamic observation revealed a progressive deterioration in the function of the previously implanted bioprosthetic heart valve in the aortic position, and a critical deterioration in the patient’s condition. After additional examination of the patient and selection of a new prosthesis, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement was done. The positive dynamics of the general state of the patient was noted in the early postoperative period. Echo data showed that the bioprosthetic AV peak systolic pressure gradient decreased from 90 to 29 mmHg, average gradient – from 42 to 19 mmHg. Conclusion. The minimally invasive valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement used to correct the dysfunction of a bioprosthetic AV that was previously implanted during an open surgery was shown to be safe and effective and can be considered as one of the options for repeat valve replacement.

1. Klyshnikov RYu, Ovcharenko EA, Kudryavtseva YuA, Barbarash LS. «Valve-in-valve» reprosthesing of cardiac artificial valves. Russ J Cardiol. 2016; 11 (139): 73–80. [In Russ, English abstract]. doi: 10.15829/1560-4071-2016-11-73-80.

2. Imaev TE, Komlev AE, Kolegaev AS, Lepilin PM, Akchurin RS. The current status of transcatheter heart valve replacement, using the valve-in-valve technique. Consilium Medicum. 2016; 18 (5): 89–92. [In Russ, English abstract].

3. Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Denniss AR. Approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Online J Health Allied Scs. 2013; 12 (4): 3.

4. Spaziano M, Mylotte D, Thériault-Lauzier P, Ole De Backer, Sndergaard L, Bosmans J et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis . EuroIntervention. 2017; 13 (10): 1149–1156.

5. Hisato Takagi, Shohei Mitta, Tomo Ando. Meta-analysis of valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019; 67: 243–250.

6. Duncan A,  Moat N ,  Simonato M , de Weger A, Kempfert J, Eggebrecht H et al. Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative stentless versus stented bioprostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul 8; 12 (13): 1256–1263.

7. Gurvitch R, Cheung AYeJ, Wood DA Willson AB, Toggweiler S, Binder R et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve Implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58 (21).

8. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, Pasic M, Waksman R, Kodali S et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014; 312 (2): 162–170.

9. Dvir D, Webb JG, Brecker S, Bleiziffer S, HildickSmith D, Colombo A et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the Global Valve-in-Valve Registry. Circulation. 2012; 126: 2335–44.

10. Grubitzsch H, Zobel S, Christ T, Holinski S, Stangl K, Treskatsch S et al. Redo procedures for degenerated stentless aortic xenografts and the role of valve-in-valve transcatheter techniques. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2017; 51 (4): 653–659. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw397 .

11. Kofler  M, Sebastian J,  Stastny  L,  Dumfarth  J, Reindl  M, Wachter K et al. EuroSCORE II and the STS score are more accurate in transapical than in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2018; 26 (3): 413–419. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivx343 .

12. Aziz M, Simonato M, Webb J, Abdel-Wahab M, McElhinney D, Duncan A et al. Mortality prediction after transcatheter treatment of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves utilizing various international scoring systems: Insights from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 00: 1–8. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27714.