Background:Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or... Show moreBackground:Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR.Methods:Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient >= 10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as >= moderate.Results:A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5 +/- 12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76-996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510-1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR (P<0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7 +/- 2.8 mm Hg (>= 5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients (P=0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P<0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P=0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P=0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient >= 5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74-12.56; P=0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88-21.53; P<0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement.Conclusions:Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored. Show less
Aims We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring... Show moreAims We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)].Methods and results From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 +/- 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation >= moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 - 3.12; P 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29 - 8.51; P < 0.001].Conclusion The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV. Show less
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictors of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction after transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR).BACKGROUND LVOT obstruction... Show moreOBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictors of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction after transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR).BACKGROUND LVOT obstruction is a major concern with TMVR, but limited data exist regarding its predictors and impact on outcomes.METHODS Patients with pre-procedural multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) undergoing TMVR for failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve), annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring), and mitral annular calcification (valve-in-MAC) were included in this study. Echocardiographic and procedural characteristics were recorded, and comprehensive assessment with MDCT was performed to identify the predictors of LVOT obstruction (defined as an increment of mean LVOT gradient >= 10 mm Hg from baseline). The new LVOT (neo-LVOT) area left after TMVR was estimated by embedding a virtual valve into the mitral annulus on MDCT, simulating the procedure.RESULTS Among 194 patients with pre-procedural MDCT undergoing TMVR (valve-in-valve, 107 patients; valve-in-ring, 50 patients; valve-in-MAC, 37 patients), LVOT obstruction was observed in 26 patients (13.4%), with a higher rate after valve-in-MAC than valve-in-ring and valve-in-valve (54.1% vs. 8.0% vs. 1.9%; p < 0.001). Patients with LVOT obstruction had significantly higher procedural mortality compared with those without LVOT obstruction (34.6% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis showed that an estimated neo-LVOT area <= 1.7 cm(2) predicted LVOT obstruction with sensitivity of 96.2% and specificity of 92.3%.CONCLUSIONS LVOT obstruction after TMVR was associated with higher procedural mortality. A small estimated neo-LVOT area was significantly associated with LVOT obstruction after TMVR and may help identify patients at high risk for LVOT obstruction. (c) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
