Biological valves can lead to structural valve degeneration (SVD) over time and due to various factors, reducing their durability. SVD patients need to undergo valve replacement surgery again, while traditional open chest surgery can cause significant trauma and patients often give up treatment due to intolerance. Research has shown that as an alternative treatment option for reoperation of thoracic valve replacement surgery, redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement for SVD is safe and effective, but still faces many challenges, including prosthesis-patient mismatch, high cross valve pressure difference, and coronary obstruction. This article aims to review the strategies, clinical research status and progress of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement in SVD patients.
ObjectiveTo explore the short-term follow-up clinical effect of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation treatment for mitral bioprosthesis deterioration.MethodsThe single center data of elderly patients with mitral valve bioprosthetic dysfunction who received transapical J-Valve intervention between January 2019 and May 2020 were reviewed and summarized. After the informed consent was signed, single lumen endotracheal intubation was performed under general anesthesia in hybrid operating room. The left intercostal small incision was used to explore the apical area. Fluoroscopy and three-dimensional esophageal ultrasound were used to guide the puncture needle. Then the guide wire entered the left atrium through the mitral valve biological valve. The catheter was exchanged, and the rigid support wire was exchanged. The reverse loaded J-Valve system was guided and implanted into the biological mitral valve with beating heart. The appropriate implantation depth was adjusted, and stent valve was released under rapid pacing. Post balloon dilation of the valve was performed if necessary.ResultsFrom January 2019 to May 2020, transcatheter J-Valve implantation was completed in 20 patients with mitral valve dysfunction and high-risk evaluation of routine thoracotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass (the Society of Thoracic Surgeon score above 6). In terms of the type of the the mitral bioprosthesis, there were 6 cases of Hancock valves, 7 cases of Perimount valves, 6 cases of Epic valves, and 1 case of Baxiter valve. In terms of the size of the the mitral bioprosthesis, there were 2 cases of size 29 valves, 11 cases of size 27 valves, and 7 cases of size 25 valves. One valve fell into the left ventricle at early stage. One patient had mild valve displacement during operation, and a second valve was implanted at the same time. The success rate of valve-in-valve implantation was 95%. The length of stay in intensive care unit was less than 6 h in 5 cases, 6-24 h in 13 cases, 24-48 h in 1 case, and more than 48 h in 1 case. No patient’s postoperative mitral regurgitation was moderate or above. The mean mitral valve pressure gradient was (5.2±2.3) mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa). Patients recovered well after the valve-in-valve implantation treatment, with no death within postoperative one month. One patient died of infection and multiple organ failure during follow-up after one month. Other patients recovered smoothly without serious complications.ConclusionsThe clinical effect of J-Valve intervention in the treatment of mitral valve bioprosthetic dysfunction through apical approach is good. The implantation can be completed under beating heart, avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass and routine thoracotomy cardiac arrest, which is worthy of further observation and follow-up.
ObjectiveTo investigate the risk or protective factors for systemic embolism (SE) in patients undergoing bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (MVR). Methods Between October 2002 and March 2013, a total of 146 patients underwent bioprosthetic MVR. There were 78 females and 68 males with mean age of 66.23±5.17 years. The primary reason of mitral valve disease was mitral valve degeneration or mitral valve leaflet prolapse in 40 patients, rheumatic heart valve disease in 101 patients, ischemic heart disease in 3 patients, infectious endocarditis in 1 patient, and mechanical peri-valvular leak in 1 patient. All patients were given anticoagulation therapy with warfarin for 3 months. Thereafter, antithrombotic medication was prescribed according to the surgeon's preference. The patients were followed up by telephone or mail for postoperative condition and SE events. ResultsSixteen (10.96%) patients developed SE events, including cerebral infarction in 13 cases, transient ischemic attack (TIA) in 2 cases and spleen infarction in 1 case. A total of 16 patients died during follow-up. The 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year cumulative survival rate after surgery was 95.2%, 93.6%, 92.5% and 88.3% respectively. Patients with SE events had lower rate of left atrial appendage obliteration than those without SE events (25.0% vs. 78.6%, P=0.015). Multivariate analysis showed that left atrial appendage obliteration was an independent protective factor for SE in patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR (P=0.041). ConclusionLeft atrial appendage obliteration is a major protective factor for systemic embolism in patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR no matter what antithrombotic medication is taken.
Objective To analyze the medium-and long-term r esults of tricuspid valve replacement(TVR), to summarize the experience in opera tive therapy for tricuspid valve disease. Methods From January 1998 to May 2006, sixty seven patients had undergone TVR. The etiology was rheumatic disease in 25 cases, congenital disease in 37 cases, degenerative disease in 1 case, infective endocarditis in 3 cases, a nd cardiac tumor in 1 case. All operations were performed under general anesthes i a and by cardiopulmonary bypass. Bioprostheses was replaced in 28 patients, whil e mechanical valve was replaced in 39 patients. Associated procedure included mi tral valve replacement in 13 cases, mitral valve replacement and aortic valve replac ement in 12 cases, repair of ventricular septal defect in 1 case, repair of atri al septal defect in 1 case, and radioablation of atrial fibrillation in 3 case s. Results The operative mortality was 11.94% (8/67)，among these patients , 6 cases died of serious heart failure,1 case died of ventricular fibrillation, 1 case died of multi organ failure. During follow-up, 1 patient died of biopro thesis dysfunction 1 year after the operation, 1 patient died of cerebral emboli s m 6 years after the operation. Through statistical analysis, it showed that the mortality of TVR in rheumatic tricuspid valve disease was higher than that in co ngenital tricuspid valve disease ［5.56%（2/36）vs. 24.00% (6/25); χ2=4.425 , P=0.036］; the mortality in second time operation was higher than that in first time operation ［30.00%（3/10）vs. 8.77% (5/57);χ2=3.646，P=0.033 ］; while there was no significant difference in immediate and long-term result s with different choice of bioprosthetic or mechanical valve in TVR (χ2=0.002 , P=0.961). Conclusion Operative an d follow-up mortality is high in the TVR, valve replac ement is the last selection for the treatment of serious tricuspid disease, appr opriate operative technique and perioperative therapy is the key for success o f the operation.
ObjectiveTo analyze the reason and prevention of late bioprosthetic heart valve thrombosis (LBVT). MethodsBioprosthetic heart valves were implanted in 580 patients between January 2001 and July 2013 in Changhai Hospital, and only found one case of LBVT (0.2%). Reoperation was performed for a 67-year-old male patient 3 years after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic valve stenosis. Retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and reviewed the literature between January 1989 and December 2013 in Pubmed. ResultsNo risk factor for thrombosis was revealed in this patient. Pathology revealed valve thrombosis and collagen and elastic fibers fragmentation and disruption in valve leaflets. In literature review, 20 articles and 47 cases were brought in. The morbidity of LBVT was 0.2%-1.0%. At least 18 patients had high risk factors, and 15 of the 18 patients discontinued anticoagulation after 3 months. However, at least 10 patients had no high risk factors. Forty-four of the 47 patients received stented porcine valve replacement, only one patient received stented bovine pericardial valve replacement. ConclusionsLBVT is a rare but serious complication after bioprosthetic valve replacement, the causes of which include the feature of the patients and the bioprosthetic valves. Bovine pericardial valves could be superior to porcine valves in preventing LBVT. Postoperative long-time aspirin therapy is recommended for patients without high risk factors. Patients with any high risk factors should prolong anticoagulation.
Commissural misalignment of biological valve and autologous valve during transcatheter aortic valve replacement may affect the filling of coronary artery, reduce the feasibility of redo-aortic valve intervention and damage the valve function, which will adversely affect long-term prognosis of patients. Some studies have obtained achievement by changing the axial direction of valve and using individualized computer simulation technology to improve the alignment technology. However, there are still many unknown problems about the impact of commissural misalignment on patients, and accurate commissural alignment techniques still need to be further explored. This article systematically expounds the possible impact of commissural misalignment between biological valve and autologous valve in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, possibly effective accurate commissural alignment techniques and related research progress.
ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of mechanical prosthetic versus bioprosthetic replacement of tricuspid valve. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 344 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in Guangdong General Hospital between January 2000 and December 2010. There were 227 female and 117 male patients with their age of 8-74 (42.0±13.3) years. We allocated the patients into two groups: 168 patients (48.8%) at age of 37.0±11.6 years underwent mechanical tricuspid valve replacement (the MTVR group) and 176 (51.2%) patients at age of 46.0±13.4 years underwent biological tricuspid valve replacement (the BTVR group). Follow-up data were obtained via patients' visiting the outpatient clinic, telephone or mail contacts. ResultsThe mean follow-up time was 5.7 years (ranged from 2 months to 12.6 years). In the BTVR group, 149 patients survived to discharge from hospital, and 144 patients were followed-up successfully, giving a 96.6% follow-up rate. Early mortality (within 30 days post-operation) occurred in 29 patients (16.5%), and 14 patients (7.9%) died after 30 days post-operation. Eighteen bioprosthetic valve degeneration was found during follow-up, and infective endocarditis in 3 patients. In the MTVR group, 152 patients survived to discharge from hospital, 142 patients (93.4%) were followed-up. Early mortality in 13 patients (7.7%), and 14 patients (8.3%) died after 30 days post-operation. Nineteen patients suffered from mechanical prosthesis obstruction, no infective endocarditis patients was found in the MTVR group. There was no statistical difference between the BTVR group and the MTVR group in mortality rate (24.4% versus 16.1%, P=0.054) and in reoperation rate (4.2% versus 9.9%, P=0.051), respectively．There were statistical differences in long-term survival rates between the BTVR group and the MTVR group with 1 year survival rate(78% vs. 89%), 5 years survival rate(74% vs. 86%), and 10 years survival rate (66% versus 78%) with P value at 0.003. ConclusionsThis study suggests that the type of implanted prosthesis in tricuspid replacement does not affect long-term outcomes or the reoperation rate. The survival rate is higher in the MTVR group than that in the BTVR group, which may contribute to younger age in the MTVR group. There is a tendency in higher infective endocarditis incidence in the BTVR group than that in the MTVR group.
ObjectiveTo summarize the results and clinical experience of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using domestic self-expanding valve in patients with aortic degenerated bio-prosthesis. MethodsFrom January 2019 to April 2023, the patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve surgery in the Department of Cardiac Surgery of Tianjin Chest Hospital due to surgical bio-prosthesis failure were included. Characteristics of valves, perioperative complications, and hemodynamic manifestations during the early postoperative and follow-up period were analyzed. ResultsA total of 24 patients were enrolled, including 14 males and 10 females with an average age of 68.17±7.72 years, and the average interval between the two operations was 10.48±4.09 years. All patients were successfully discharged without complications such as coronary artery obstruction and pacemaker implantation, and the average transvalvular pressure gradient was 16.39±6.52 mm Hg before discharge. During the median follow-up time of 16 months, the left ventricular diastolic inner diameter and ejection fraction were continuously improved. ConclusionTranscatheter valve-in-valve using domestic self-expanding valves is safe and feasible to treat aortic bioprosthetic valve failure. Sound patient selection and surgical strategies are critical to achieve good hemodynamics.
Surgical bioprosthetic valve in the mitral position typically degenerates in 10-15 years, when intervention is required again. In the past, redo surgical mitral valve replacement has been the only treatment choice for such patients suffering from bioprosthetic valve failure, despite the even higher risk associated with redo open-heart surgery. In recent years, transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in the mitral position has evolved as an reasonable alternative to redo surgery for the treatment of surgical mitral bioprosthetic valve failure. Here we report an 81-year-old female patient with surgical mitral bioprosthetic valve failure, who successfully underwent valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement via the transfemoral-transseptal approach. The procedure was successful owing to comprehensive CT imaging work-up, despite the technical challenges associated with bilateral giant atria and small left ventricle.
Heart valve replacement is the major surgical treatment of severe valvular diseases. Due to the durability and reoperation-free, mechanical valves are widely used. Bioprosthesis valves became popular recently because of long service life and no demand for lifelong anticoagulation. However, how to choose the appropriate prosthetic heart valves, especially the application of bioprosthesis valves for patients at 55 to 65 years is still a major problem. This review focuses on more effective and scientific basis for rational choice of mechanical and bioprosthesis valve.