OBJECTIVE: Aortic root replacement requires construction of a composite valve-graft and reimplantation of coronary arteries. This study assessed the feasibility of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation after aortic root replacement.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 74 consecutive patients who received a composite valve-graft at a single institution from 2019 to 2021. Forty patients had bioprosthetic valves with adequate postoperative gated computed tomographic angiography scans. Computational simulations of balloon and self-expanding transcatheter valve deployments were performed. The modeled coronary distances were compared with traditional, manually measured valve-to-coronary distances.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the modeled versus manual measurements of valve to coronary distances for all patients regardless of valve type or coronary artery analyzed (P < .05). Most patients are low risk for coronary obstruction per 3-dimensional modeling, including those with a valve-to-coronary distance <4 mm. Only 1 patient (2.5%) was at risk for coronary obstruction for the left coronary artery using a balloon valve. No other valve combination was considered high risk of coronary obstruction. Five patients (12.5%) were at risk for possible valve stent deformation at the outflow, due to angulation at the graft anastomosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Following aortic root replacement, all patients were candidates for valve-in-valve procedure using 1 or both types of transcatheter heart valves. Self-expanding valves may be at higher risk for stent frame deformation at graft anastomotic lines and balloon-expandable valves may be at higher risk of coronary obstruction.

暂无摘要。

Recently, the carotid artery has been used as an alternative approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to prove the safety and feasibility of transcarotid (TC) vs. transfemoral (TF) TAVI. Methods and Results: This retrospective study enrolled 726 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. All patients underwent TC-TAVI or TF-TAVI at Hôpital Haut-Lévèque, Bordeaux Heart University Hospital between September 2012 and October 2017. The TC-TAVI (n=83) and TF-TAVI (n=643) groups were compared statistically. The EuroSCORE II was significantly higher (8.2±6.7 vs. 6.4±5.5; P=0.007) and rates of current smoking, dyslipidemia and peripheral arterial disease were higher in the TC-TAVI than TF-TAVI group. All TC-TAVIs and 9.3% of TF-TAVIs were performed under general anesthesia. Radiation time was significantly shorter in the TC-TAVI than TF-TAVI group (14.5±6.0 vs. 23.0±10.8 min; P<0.001). Postimplant balloon valvuloplasty was performed more frequently in the TF-TAVI than TC-TAVI group (7.2% vs. 19.4%; P=0.006). Postoperative echocardiographic data were similar between the 2 groups, and there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality (8.4% vs. 5.0%; P=0.189) or stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; P=0.428) between the TF-TAVI and TC-TAVI groups.
The feasibility and 30-day safety of TC-TAVI and TF-TAVI are similar. When TF-TAVI is not suitable anatomically for a particular patient, TC-TAVI is a preferable alternative.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a life-threatening condition when left untreated. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold standard treatment for the majority of patients; however, transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) has emerged as the preferred treatment for high-risk or inoperable patients. The concept of transcatheter heart valves originated in the 1960s and has evolved into the current Edwards Sapien and Medtronic CoreValve platforms available for clinical use. Complications following TAVI, including cerebrovascular events, perivalvular regurgitation, vascular injury, and heart block have decreased with experience and evolving technology, such that ongoing trials studying TAVI in lower risk patients have become tenable. The multidisciplinary team involving the cardiac surgeon and cardiologist plays an essential role in patient selection, procedural conduct, and perioperative care.

暂无摘要。