Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2021
Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for the Failing Surgical Perceval Bioprosthesis.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suleiman Tariq, Tanseco Kristoffer, Arunothayaraj Sandeep, Michail Michael, Cockburn James, Hadjivassilev Stanislav, Hildick-Smith David
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Perceval Valve has been increasingly used in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) recently due to ease of implantation. However, we have seen some cases of relatively early haemodynamic failure of the Perceval valve and these patients may then present for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI). Experience of ViV-TAVI in the Perceval valve is limited.
METHODS: We report our experience of VIV-TAVI in four cases of early-failing Perceval valves, two with stenosis and two with regurgitation. We also review the literature with regard to ViV-TAVI for this indication.
RESULTS: Four patients aged between 66 and 78 years presented with Perceval valve dysfunction an average of 4.6 years following SAVR. All cases underwent Heart Team discussion and a ViV-TAVI procedure was planned thereafter. Strategies to ensure crossing through the centre of the valve and not outside any portion of the frame were found to be essential. Three patients had self-expanding valves implanted and one had a balloon-expandable prosthesis. The average aortic valve area (AVA) improved from 0.8 cm2 pre-procedure to 1.5 cm2 post-procedure*. The mean gradient (MG) improved from 35.5 mmHg (range 19.7-53 mmHg) pre-procedure to 14.8 mmHg (range 7-30 mmHg) post-procedure. In one patient a MG of 30 mmHg persisted following valve deployment. There were no significant peri-procedural complications.
CONCLUSIONS: ViV-TAVI is a useful option for failed Perceval prostheses and appears safe and effective in this small series. Crossing inside the whole frame of the Perceval valve is essential.
METHODS: We report our experience of VIV-TAVI in four cases of early-failing Perceval valves, two with stenosis and two with regurgitation. We also review the literature with regard to ViV-TAVI for this indication.
RESULTS: Four patients aged between 66 and 78 years presented with Perceval valve dysfunction an average of 4.6 years following SAVR. All cases underwent Heart Team discussion and a ViV-TAVI procedure was planned thereafter. Strategies to ensure crossing through the centre of the valve and not outside any portion of the frame were found to be essential. Three patients had self-expanding valves implanted and one had a balloon-expandable prosthesis. The average aortic valve area (AVA) improved from 0.8 cm2 pre-procedure to 1.5 cm2 post-procedure*. The mean gradient (MG) improved from 35.5 mmHg (range 19.7-53 mmHg) pre-procedure to 14.8 mmHg (range 7-30 mmHg) post-procedure. In one patient a MG of 30 mmHg persisted following valve deployment. There were no significant peri-procedural complications.
CONCLUSIONS: ViV-TAVI is a useful option for failed Perceval prostheses and appears safe and effective in this small series. Crossing inside the whole frame of the Perceval valve is essential.