Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by structural or nonstructural valve dysfunction. Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have... Show moreBioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by structural or nonstructural valve dysfunction. Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of structural valve deterioration. The main objective of this summary of experts participating in a virtual workshop was to propose standardized definitions for nonstructural and structural BVD and BVF following aortic or mitral biological valve replacement with the goal of facilitating research reporting and implementation of these terms in clinical practice. Definitions of structural BVF, based on valve reintervention or death, underestimate the true incidence of BVF. However, definitions solely based on the presence of high transprosthetic gradient at a given echocardiogram during follow-up overestimate the incidence of structural BVD and BVF. Definitions of aortic or mitral structural BVD must therefore include the confirmation by imaging of permanent structural changes to the leaflets alongside evidence of deterioration in valve hemodynamic function at echocardiography follow-up. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics.... Show moreA virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. 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
