BackgroundRecurrence of mitral regurgitation (MR) after surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) varies and may require reoperation. Redo mitral valve surgery can be technically challenging and is... Show moreBackgroundRecurrence of mitral regurgitation (MR) after surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) varies and may require reoperation. Redo mitral valve surgery can be technically challenging and is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of MitraClip as a treatment strategy after failed SMVR and identify procedure modifications to overcome technical challenges.Methods and ResultsThis international multicenter observational retrospective study collected information for all patients from 16 high-volume hospitals who were treated with MitraClip after failed SMVR from October 29, 2009, until August 1, 2017. Data were anonymously collected. Technical and device success were recorded per modified Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Overall, 104 consecutive patients were included. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.5% and median age was 73 years. At baseline, the majority of patients (82%) were in New York Heart Association class >= III and MR was moderate or higher in 86% of patients. The cause of MR pre-SMVR was degenerative in 50%, functional in 35%, mixed in 8%, and missing/unknown in 8% of patients. The median time between SMVR and MitraClip was 5.3 (1.9-9.7) years. Technical and device success were 90% and 89%, respectively. Additional/modified imaging was applied in 21% of cases. An MR reduction of >= 1 grade was achieved in 94% of patients and residual MR was moderate or less in 90% of patients. In-hospital all-cause mortality was 2%, and 86% of patients were in New York Heart Association class <= II.ConclusionsMitraClip is a safe and less invasive treatment option for patients with recurrent MR after failed SMVR. Additional/modified imaging may help overcome technical challenges during leaflet grasping. Show less
Simonato, M.; Whisenant, B.; Ribeiro, H.B.; Webb, J.G.; Kornowski, R.; Guerrero, M.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2021
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
Duncan, A.; Moat, N.; Simonato, M.; Weger, A. de; Kempfert, J.; Eggebrecht, H.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2019
OBJECTIVES A large comprehensive analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed for failed stentless bioprostheses.BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic... Show moreOBJECTIVES A large comprehensive analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed for failed stentless bioprostheses.BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to redo surgery for patients with a failing aortic bioprosthesis.METHODS Unadjusted outcome data were collected from the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) registry between 2007 and 2016 from a total of 1,598 aortic ViV procedures (291 stentless, 1,307 stented bioprostheses).RESULTS Bioprosthetic failure was secondary to aortic regurgitation in 56% of stentless and 20% stented devices (p < 0.001). ViV-TAVR access was transfemoral in 71.1% stentless and 74.2% stented ViV-TAVR. Self-expanding devices were more frequently used in stentless ViV-TAVR (56.0% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.05), but there was no difference between balloon-expanding and self-expanding TAVR devices for stented ViV-TAVR (48.6% vs. 45.1%). The degree of oversizing for all mechanisms of bioprosthesis failure was 9 +/- 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 6 +/- 9% for stented ViV-TAVR (and 8 +/- 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 3 +/- 9% for stented ViV-TAVR in patients with predominant aortic regurgitation; both p < 0.001). Initial device malposition (10.3% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.014), second transcatheter device (7.9% vs. 3.4%), coronary obstruction (6.0% vs. 1.5%), and paravalvular leak occurred more frequently in stentless ViV-TAVR (all p < 0.001). Hospital stay duration (median 7 days) was no different, and 30-day (6.6% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.12) and 1-year mortality year (15.8% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.15) were numerically higher, but not statistically different, after stentless ViV-TAVR.CONCLUSIONS Stentless ViV-TAVR is associated with greater periprocedural complications (initial device malposition, second transcatheter device, coronary obstruction, paravalvular leak), but no difference in 30-day and 1-year outcome. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
Seiffert, M.; Treede, H.; Schofer, J.; Linke, A.; Woehrle, J.; Baumbach, H.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2018
