Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (VinV-TAVR) for failed surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves

Objective We sought to investigate the procedural and hemodynamic outcome after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VinV-TAVR) for different surgical (SBV) and transcatheter (TAVR) bioprosthetic valves. Methods and results 223 patients (76 ± 11years, STS-Score 8.3 ± 10.1) suffering from SBV failure treated with VinV-TAVR were enrolled at 6 centers across Germany. At time of the intervention, the majority of patients were in NYHA-class ≥ III (88%, n = 180). Failure mode of the SBVs was either stenosis, regurgitation (AR) or a combination of both in 85 (38%), 76 (34%) and 62 (28%) patients, respectively. 138 (62%) patients were treated with first generation TAVR valves (Edwards Sapien XT or CoreValve). Second generation valves were implanted in 85 (38%) patients (Sapien 3, Medtronic CoreValve Evolut, SJM-Portico, JenaValve). VinV-TAVR was associated with high procedural success rate, conversion to surgery was necessary in 3 (2%) patients. After VinV-TAVR procedure, 4 (2%) patients suffered from ≥ moderate AR. In 6 (3%) patients a second valve was implanted due to mispositioning of the first valve and subsequent severe paravalvular AR. Coronary obstruction was observed in 4 (2%) patients. Major bleeding and cerebrovascular complications (according to VARC) were reported in 3 (1%) and 4 (2%) patients at 30 days. Post-interventionally, 44/178 (25%) patients evidenced a mean pressure gradient (mPG) ≥ 20 mmHg. Residual stenosis was not associated with increased mortality (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.13–1.22; p = 0.11). Conclusion In VinV-TAVR for SBV-failure is a safe procedure resulting in hemodynamic improvement in the majority of patients. Residual stenosis is a common finding which can be observed in 1/4 of patients undergoing VinV-TAVR. However, this condition is not associated with increased 1-year-mortality.