Impact of Different Valve-in-Valve Positions on Functional Results of the New Generation of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve

Abstract

Objectives Very precise positioning of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) inside the degenerated SAV is a crucial factor for valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure to achieve optimal hemodynamic results. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the impact of implantation depth on functional results after ViV procedures in a standardized in vitro setting.

Methods THV (SAPIEN 3 Ultra 23-mm size) and three SAV models (Magna Ease, Trifecta, and Hancock II—all 21-mm size) were tested at different circulatory conditions in five different positions of the THV (2–6 mm) inside the SAV. Mean pressure gradient (MPG), effective orifice area (EOA), geometric orifice area (GOA_max), and pinwheeling index (PWI_mean) were analyzed.

Results EOA and MPG of the THV did not differ significantly regarding the position inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II (p > 0.05). However, EOA differed significantly, depending on the position of the THV inside Trifecta (2 vs. 5 mm; p = 0.021 and 2 vs. 6 mm; p < 0.001). The THV presented the highest EOA (2.047 cm²) and the lowest MPG (5.387 mm Hg) inside the Magna Ease, whereas the lowest EOA (1.335 cm²) and the highest MPG (11.876 mm Hg) were shown inside the Hancock II. Additionally, the highest GOA_max and the lowest PWI_mean of the THV were noticed inside the Magna Ease. The THV showed lower GOA_max and higher PWI_mean inside the Trifecta when placed in a deeper position.

Conclusion Deep implantation of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Trifecta correlates with impaired functional results. In contrast, the implantation position of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II did not have a significant effect on functional results.

Keywords

aortic valve - TAVI - valve in valve - implantation depth - SAPIEN 3 Ultra - bioprosthetic heart valve

• References

• 1 Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation 2012; 126 (19) 2335-2344
• 2 Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S. et al; Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry Investigators. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 2014; 312 (02) 162-170
• 3 Simonato M, Webb J, Kornowski R. et al. Transcatheter replacement of failed bioprosthetic valves: large multicenter assessment of the effect of implantation depth on hemodynamics after aortic valve-in-valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (06) e003651
• 4 Abdelghani M, Mankerious N, Allali A. et al. Bioprosthetic valve performance after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in large versus small aortic valve annuli: insights from the CHOICE trial and the CHOICE-Extend Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11 (24) 2507-2518
• 5 Scholtz S, Piper C, Horstkotte D. et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve/Evolut R^© for degenerated small versus bigger bioprostheses. J Interv Cardiol 2018; 31 (03) 384-390
• 6 Azadani AN, Reardon M, Simonato M. 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 (06) 1303-1315.e1
• 7 Sadat N, Bruhn D, Scharfschwerdt M. et al. Impact of different valve-in-valve positions on the hydrodynamic performance of the newest-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valve. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (05) ezac158
• 8 Bapat V. Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them. EuroIntervention 2014; 10 (Suppl U): U44-U51
• 9 ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Cardiovascular implants—cardiac valve prostheses—Part 1: General requirements; ISO 5840-1: 2021. Accessed April 8, 2023 at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77033.html2021
• 10 ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Cardiovascular implants—Cardiac valve prostheses—Part 2: Surgically implanted heart valve substitutes; ISO 5840-2: 2021. Accessed April 8, 2023 at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77034.html2021
• 11 ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Cardiovascular implants—cardiac valve prostheses—Part 3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques; ISO 5840-3: 2021. Accessed April 8, 2023 at: https://www.iso.org/standard/67606.html2021
• 12 Scharfschwerdt M, Misfeld M, Sievers HH. The influence of a nonlinear resistance element upon in vitro aortic pressure tracings and aortic valve motions. ASAIO J 2004; 50 (05) 498-502
• 13 Durko AP, Pibarot P, Atluri P. et al; (Task Force Chairman); EACTS–STS–AATS Valve Labelling Task Force. Essential information on surgical heart valve characteristics for optimal valve prosthesis selection: expert consensus document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 59 (01) 54-64
• 14 Midha PA, Raghav V, Condado JF. et al. Valve type, size, and deployment location affect hemodynamics in an in vitro valve-in-valve model. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (15) 1618-1628
• 15 Sadat N, Scharfschwerdt M, Schaller T. et al. Functional performance of 8 small surgical aortic valve bioprostheses: an in vitro study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (04) ezac426
• 16 Martin C, Sun W. Transcatheter valve underexpansion limits leaflet durability: implications for valve-in-valve procedures. Ann Biomed Eng 2017; 45 (02) 394-404
• 17 Abbasi M, Azadani AN. Leaflet stress and strain distributions following incomplete transcatheter aortic valve expansion. J Biomech 2015; 48 (13) 3663-3671
• 18 Meier D, Puehler T, Lutter G. et al. Bioprosthetic valve remodeling in nonfracturable surgical valves: impact on THV expansion and hydrodynamic performance. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (13) 1594-1608
• 19 Chhatriwalla AK, Allen KB, Depta JP. et al. Outcomes of bioprosthetic valve fracture in patients undergoing valve-in-valve TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (05) 530-539
• 20 Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Saxon JT. et al; Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Investigators. Bioprosthetic valve fracture: technical insights from a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 158 (05) 1317-1328.e1
• 21 Sadat N, Bruhn D, Scharfschwerdt M. et al. Impact of high-pressure balloon aortic valvuloplasty on the hydrodynamic result after a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2022; 100 (05) 841-849
• 22 Sathananthan J, Fraser R, Hatoum H. et al. A bench test study of bioprosthetic valve fracture performed before versus after transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention. EuroIntervention 2020; 15 (16) 1409-1416