Clinical research status and progress of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural biovalvular degeneration_West China Medical Journal

Authors：

XU Junjie ^1,2 ,  XU Chengyi ¹

1. Department of Cardiology, Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430022, P. R. China;
2. Medical College of Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430062 , P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

XU Chengyi, Email: xuchengyi_yaxin@aliyun.com

Keywords：

Redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement; valve in valve; biovalvular degeneration; structural valve degeneration

DOI：

10.7507/1002-0179.202309051

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Biological valves can lead to structural valve degeneration (SVD) over time and due to various factors, reducing their durability. SVD patients need to undergo valve replacement surgery again, while traditional open chest surgery can cause significant trauma and patients often give up treatment due to intolerance. Research has shown that as an alternative treatment option for reoperation of thoracic valve replacement surgery, redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement for SVD is safe and effective, but still faces many challenges, including prosthesis-patient mismatch, high cross valve pressure difference, and coronary obstruction. This article aims to review the strategies, clinical research status and progress of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement in SVD patients.

Citation： XU Junjie, XU Chengyi. Clinical research status and progress of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural biovalvular degeneration. West China Medical Journal, 2024, 39(1): 124-128. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.202309051 Copy

1.	国家心血管病中心, 国家结构性心脏病介入质控中心, 中华医学会心血管病学分会, 等. 经导管主动脉瓣置换术临床实践指南. 中华医学杂志, 2023, 103(12): 886-900.
2.	Sá MP, Ramlawi B, Sicouri S, et al. Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future. J Card Surg, 2022, 37(1): 205-213.
3.	Landes U, Webb JG, De Backer O, et al. Repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 75(16): 1882-1893.
4.	Kleiman NS, Carroll JD. The complexities of redo TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(15): 1555-1557.
5.	Gallo M, Fovino LN, Blitzer D, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural degeneration of previously implanted transcatheter valves (TAVR-in-TAVR): a systematic review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022, 61(5): 967-976.
6.	Tang GHL, Kaneko T, Cavalcante JL. Predicting the feasibility of post-TAVR coronary access and redo TAVR: more unknowns than knowns. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 736-738.
7.	Buzzatti N, Montorfano M, Romano V, et al. A computed tomography study of coronary access and coronary obstruction after redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention, 2020, 16(12): e1005-e1013.
8.	Tarantini G, Fabris T, Nai Fovino L. TAVR-in-TAVR and coronary access: importance of preprocedural planning. EuroIntervention, 2020, 16(2): e129-e132.
9.	Gallo M, Sá MPBO, Doulamis IP, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves - an update on indications, techniques, and clinical results. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2021, 18(7): 597-608.
10.	Muensterer A, Puluca N, Ruge H, et al. Surgical explantation of failed transcatheter heart valves: indications and results. Heart Vessels, 2022, 37(12): 2083-2092.
11.	Bapat VN, Zaid S, Fukuhara S, et al. Surgical explantation after TAVR failure: mid-term outcomes from the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14(18): 1978-1991.
12.	Tang GHL, Zaid S, Kleiman NS, et al. Explant vs redo-TAVR after transcatheter valve failure: mid-term outcomes from the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR international registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2023, 16(8): 927-941.
13.	Yokoyama Y, Kuno T, Zaid S, et al. Surgical explantation of transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JTCVS Open, 2021, 8: 207-227.
14.	Fischer MA, Williams TM, Harvey R, et al. TAVR explantation: re-do risk without the re-do sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2021, 35(8): 2256-2259.
15.	Thourani VH, Edelman JJ, Meduri CU. TAVR in TAVR: the future is now. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 75(16): 1894-1896.
16.	Raschpichler MC, Woitek F, Chakravarty T, et al. Valve-in-valve for degenerated transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve for degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses: a 3-center comparison of hemodynamic and 1-year outcome. J Am Heart Assoc, 2020, 9(14): e013973.
17.	Hawkins RB, Deeb GM, Sukul D, et al. Redo surgical aortic valve replacement after prior transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2023, 16(8): 942-953.
18.	Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2016, 17(6): 589-590.
19.	Testa L, Agnifili M, Van Mieghem NM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated transcatheter aortic valves: the TRANSIT international project. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14(6): e010440.
20.	Testa L, Casenghi M, Criscione E, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated transcatheter aortic valves: the TRANSIT-PPM international project. Front Cardiovasc Med, 2022, 9: 931207.
21.	Wernly B, Zappe AK, Unbehaun A, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (VinV-TAVR) for failed surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves. Clin Res Cardiol, 2019, 108(1): 83-92.
22.	Barbanti M, Webb JG, Tamburino C, et al. Outcomes of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of postprocedural and late occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation and transcatheter valve failure. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 9(9): e003930.
23.	Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 162-170.
24.	De Backer O, Søndergaard L. Redo-TAVR: what about the coronary arteries?. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(22): 2628-2630.
25.	Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR, Vemulapalli S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement of failed surgically implanted bioprostheses: the STS/ACC registry. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018, 72(4): 370-382.
26.	Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 valve-in-valve registry. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017, 69(18): 2253-2262.
27.	Bleiziffer S, Simonato M, Webb JG, et al. Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves. Eur Heart J, 2020, 41(29): 2731-2742.
28.	Tchétché D, Chevalier B, Holzhey D, et al. TAVR for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses using a self-expanding device: 1-year results from the prospective VIVA postmarket study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2019, 12(10): 923-932.
29.	Nai Fovino L, Scotti A, Massussi M, et al. Coronary angiography after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to evaluate the risk of coronary access impairment after TAVR-in-TAVR. J Am Heart Assoc, 2020, 9(13): e016446.
30.	Ye J, Lee AJ, Blanke P, et al. The first transapical transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation using the J-valve system into a failed biophysio aortic prosthesis in a patient with high risk of coronary obstruction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2018, 92(6): 1209-1214.
31.	Khan JM, Dvir D, Greenbaum AB, 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(7): 677-689.
32.	Khan JM, Bruce CG, Babaliaros VC, et al. TAVR roulette: caution regarding BASILICA laceration for TAVR-in-TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 787-789.
33.	Ochiai T, Oakley L, Sekhon N, et al. Risk of coronary obstruction due to sinus sequestration in redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(22): 2617-2627.
34.	Landes U, Sathananthan J, Witberg G, et al. Transcatheter replacement of transcatheter versus surgically implanted aortic valve bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2021, 77(1): 1-14.
35.	Meier D, Akodad M, Landes U, et al. Coronary access following redo TAVR: impact of THV design, implant technique, and cell misalignment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(15): 1519-1531.
36.	Dibie A, Landolff Q, Veugeois A, et al. Chimney technique in a TAVR-in-TAVR procedure with high risk of left main artery ostium occlusion. Eur Heart J, 2021, 42(10): 1051.
37.	Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation, 2018, 137(4): 388-399.
38.	Faroux L, Alperi A, Muntané-Carol G, et al. Safety and efficacy of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2020, 17(12): 1303-1310.
39.	Demir OM, Ruparelia N, Frame A, et al. Management of failing bioprosthesis in elderly patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2017, 14(10): 763-771.
40.	Mauler-Wittwer S, Noble S. Where are we now with TAV-in-TAV?. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(4): 378-380.

1. 国家心血管病中心, 国家结构性心脏病介入质控中心, 中华医学会心血管病学分会, 等. 经导管主动脉瓣置换术临床实践指南. 中华医学杂志, 2023, 103(12): 886-900.
2. Sá MP, Ramlawi B, Sicouri S, et al. Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future. J Card Surg, 2022, 37(1): 205-213.
3. Landes U, Webb JG, De Backer O, et al. Repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 75(16): 1882-1893.
4. Kleiman NS, Carroll JD. The complexities of redo TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(15): 1555-1557.
5. Gallo M, Fovino LN, Blitzer D, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural degeneration of previously implanted transcatheter valves (TAVR-in-TAVR): a systematic review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022, 61(5): 967-976.
6. Tang GHL, Kaneko T, Cavalcante JL. Predicting the feasibility of post-TAVR coronary access and redo TAVR: more unknowns than knowns. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 736-738.
7. Buzzatti N, Montorfano M, Romano V, et al. A computed tomography study of coronary access and coronary obstruction after redo transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention, 2020, 16(12): e1005-e1013.
8. Tarantini G, Fabris T, Nai Fovino L. TAVR-in-TAVR and coronary access: importance of preprocedural planning. EuroIntervention, 2020, 16(2): e129-e132.
9. Gallo M, Sá MPBO, Doulamis IP, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves - an update on indications, techniques, and clinical results. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2021, 18(7): 597-608.
10. Muensterer A, Puluca N, Ruge H, et al. Surgical explantation of failed transcatheter heart valves: indications and results. Heart Vessels, 2022, 37(12): 2083-2092.
11. Bapat VN, Zaid S, Fukuhara S, et al. Surgical explantation after TAVR failure: mid-term outcomes from the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14(18): 1978-1991.
12. Tang GHL, Zaid S, Kleiman NS, et al. Explant vs redo-TAVR after transcatheter valve failure: mid-term outcomes from the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR international registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2023, 16(8): 927-941.
13. Yokoyama Y, Kuno T, Zaid S, et al. Surgical explantation of transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JTCVS Open, 2021, 8: 207-227.
14. Fischer MA, Williams TM, Harvey R, et al. TAVR explantation: re-do risk without the re-do sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2021, 35(8): 2256-2259.
15. Thourani VH, Edelman JJ, Meduri CU. TAVR in TAVR: the future is now. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 75(16): 1894-1896.
16. Raschpichler MC, Woitek F, Chakravarty T, et al. Valve-in-valve for degenerated transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve for degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses: a 3-center comparison of hemodynamic and 1-year outcome. J Am Heart Assoc, 2020, 9(14): e013973.
17. Hawkins RB, Deeb GM, Sukul D, et al. Redo surgical aortic valve replacement after prior transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2023, 16(8): 942-953.
18. Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2016, 17(6): 589-590.
19. Testa L, Agnifili M, Van Mieghem NM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated transcatheter aortic valves: the TRANSIT international project. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14(6): e010440.
20. Testa L, Casenghi M, Criscione E, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated transcatheter aortic valves: the TRANSIT-PPM international project. Front Cardiovasc Med, 2022, 9: 931207.
21. Wernly B, Zappe AK, Unbehaun A, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (VinV-TAVR) for failed surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves. Clin Res Cardiol, 2019, 108(1): 83-92.
22. Barbanti M, Webb JG, Tamburino C, et al. Outcomes of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of postprocedural and late occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation and transcatheter valve failure. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2016, 9(9): e003930.
23. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 162-170.
24. De Backer O, Søndergaard L. Redo-TAVR: what about the coronary arteries?. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(22): 2628-2630.
25. Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR, Vemulapalli S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement of failed surgically implanted bioprostheses: the STS/ACC registry. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018, 72(4): 370-382.
26. Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 valve-in-valve registry. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017, 69(18): 2253-2262.
27. Bleiziffer S, Simonato M, Webb JG, et al. Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves. Eur Heart J, 2020, 41(29): 2731-2742.
28. Tchétché D, Chevalier B, Holzhey D, et al. TAVR for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses using a self-expanding device: 1-year results from the prospective VIVA postmarket study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2019, 12(10): 923-932.
29. Nai Fovino L, Scotti A, Massussi M, et al. Coronary angiography after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to evaluate the risk of coronary access impairment after TAVR-in-TAVR. J Am Heart Assoc, 2020, 9(13): e016446.
30. Ye J, Lee AJ, Blanke P, et al. The first transapical transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation using the J-valve system into a failed biophysio aortic prosthesis in a patient with high risk of coronary obstruction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2018, 92(6): 1209-1214.
31. Khan JM, Dvir D, Greenbaum AB, 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(7): 677-689.
32. Khan JM, Bruce CG, Babaliaros VC, et al. TAVR roulette: caution regarding BASILICA laceration for TAVR-in-TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 787-789.
33. Ochiai T, Oakley L, Sekhon N, et al. Risk of coronary obstruction due to sinus sequestration in redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(22): 2617-2627.
34. Landes U, Sathananthan J, Witberg G, et al. Transcatheter replacement of transcatheter versus surgically implanted aortic valve bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2021, 77(1): 1-14.
35. Meier D, Akodad M, Landes U, et al. Coronary access following redo TAVR: impact of THV design, implant technique, and cell misalignment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(15): 1519-1531.
36. Dibie A, Landolff Q, Veugeois A, et al. Chimney technique in a TAVR-in-TAVR procedure with high risk of left main artery ostium occlusion. Eur Heart J, 2021, 42(10): 1051.
37. Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation, 2018, 137(4): 388-399.
38. Faroux L, Alperi A, Muntané-Carol G, et al. Safety and efficacy of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2020, 17(12): 1303-1310.
39. Demir OM, Ruparelia N, Frame A, et al. Management of failing bioprosthesis in elderly patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2017, 14(10): 763-771.
40. Mauler-Wittwer S, Noble S. Where are we now with TAV-in-TAV?. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2022, 15(4): 378-380.

West China Medical Journal

Clinical research status and progress of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement for structural biovalvular degeneration

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content