Early-term results of percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (valve-in-valve) in dysfunctional bioprosthetic valves in pulmonary position.

Ensar Duras, Erman Çilsal, Selman Gökalp, Sezen Ugan Atik, Murat Şahin, Bekir Yükcü, Alper Güzeltaş
Author Information
  1. Ensar Duras: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID
  2. Erman Çilsal: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID
  3. Selman Gökalp: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID
  4. Sezen Ugan Atik: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID
  5. Murat Şahin: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID
  6. Bekir Yükcü: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID
  7. Alper Güzeltaş: Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye. ORCID

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed bioprosthetic valves.
Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent percutaneous valve-in-valve procedures between July 2014 and September 2023. These patients had previously received pulmonary bioprosthetic valves via surgical or transcatheter methods.
Results: The study included 20 patients (13 males, 7 females; mean age: 20.4±7.1 years; range, 10.8 to 35.8 years). Preprocedural assessment revealed stenotic dysfunction in 12 patients, regurgitant dysfunction in two patients, and a combination of both in six patients. Following implantation, there was a notable improvement in invasive measurements; systolic right ventricular pressure decreased from 64.0±24.5 mmHg to 31.3±6.7 mmHg (p<0.001), right ventricular outflow tract gradient from 44.0±23.2 mmHg to 7.6±5.8 mmHg (p<0.001), and echocardiographic pulmonary regurgitation grade from 2.1±1.2 to 0.2±0.4 (p<0.001). The median time between initial bioprosthetic pulmonary valve placement and valve-in-valve procedure was 8.2 years (IQR, 6.2 to 9.9 years). The median follow-up duration was 24.8 months (IQR, 8.3 to 40.2 months). Only one patient required a repeat PPVI procedure 10 years after the valve-in-valve procedure, while no other patients required reintervention during the follow-up period.
Conclusion: Valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed bioprosthetic valves is a feasible and safe approach, offering symptom relief and eliminating the need for further surgical interventions.

Keywords

References

  1. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021 Nov;32:27-32 [PMID: 33422413]
  2. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Aug;142(2):351-8 [PMID: 21281951]
  3. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jan 1;81(1):E44-52 [PMID: 22431478]
  4. Cardiol Clin. 2002 Aug;20(3):395-404 [PMID: 12371008]
  5. Circulation. 2006 Jun 6;113(22):2598-605 [PMID: 16735676]
  6. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Nov 1;98(5):990-999 [PMID: 34227735]
  7. Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg. 2022 Jul 29;30(3):472-483 [PMID: 36303703]
  8. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jun 1;95(7):1310-1313 [PMID: 32073737]
  9. Ann Pediatr Cardiol. 2017 Jan-Apr;10(1):11-17 [PMID: 28163423]
  10. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Jun;93(6):2007-16 [PMID: 22560964]
  11. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Nov;152(5):1333-1342.e3 [PMID: 27637422]
  12. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2007 Jul;9(4):315-22 [PMID: 17601398]
  13. Cardiol Young. 2004 Oct;14(5):533-49 [PMID: 15680076]
  14. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 May;85(5):1787-8 [PMID: 18442588]
  15. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Dec;120(6):1022-30; discussion 1031 [PMID: 11088021]
  16. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2017 Jul;8(4):435-439 [PMID: 28696882]
  17. Int J Cardiol. 2014 Oct 20;176(3):1048-9 [PMID: 25156860]
  18. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2019 Jun 14;10:2040622319857635 [PMID: 31236202]
  19. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Apr;49(4):1207-12 [PMID: 26324680]
  20. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Feb;143(2):352-60 [PMID: 22153723]
  21. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jul 13;13(13):1529-1540 [PMID: 32646693]
  22. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Feb;10(2): [PMID: 28153843]
  23. Am J Cardiol. 2015 Jan 1;115(1):118-24 [PMID: 25456860]
  24. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2012 Jul;10(7):917-23 [PMID: 22908924]
  25. Circulation. 2008 Apr 15;117(15):1964-72 [PMID: 18391109]
  26. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Jan 30;49(4):480-4 [PMID: 17258094]
  27. Circulation. 2000 Nov 7;102(19 Suppl 3):III130-5 [PMID: 11082375]
  28. Korean Circ J. 2020 Apr;50(4):302-316 [PMID: 32157831]
  29. Circulation. 2010 Aug 3;122(5):507-16 [PMID: 20644013]
  30. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011 Jan 20;13:9 [PMID: 21251297]
  31. Eur Heart J. 2010 Jun;31(11):1404-9 [PMID: 20231157]
  32. Heart Lung Circ. 2022 Dec;31(12):1649-1657 [PMID: 36038469]
  33. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Jan 1;125(1):135-139 [PMID: 31711632]
  34. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Apr;155(4):1712-1724.e1 [PMID: 29395214]
  35. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Jul;92(1):122-8; discussion 129-30 [PMID: 21718837]
  36. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Dec;5(6):862-70 [PMID: 23212395]
  37. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2017 Jun;18(6):430-435 [PMID: 27828833]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0patientsvalve-in-valvepulmonary82implantationbioprostheticyearsvalvesmmHgvalvestudypreviouslypercutaneous7p<0001procedurewithinplacedincludedsurgical2010dysfunctionrightventricularmedianIQR9follow-upmonthsrequiredBackground:aimedassessoutcomesMethods:single-centerretrospectiveunderwentproceduresJuly2014September2023receivedviatranscathetermethodsResults:13malesfemalesmeanage:4±71range35Preproceduralassessmentrevealedstenotic12regurgitanttwocombinationsixFollowingnotableimprovementinvasivemeasurementssystolicpressuredecreased640±245313±6outflowtractgradient440±236±5echocardiographicregurgitationgrade1±102±04timeinitialplacement6duration24340onepatientrepeatPPVIreinterventionperiodConclusion:Valve-in-valvefeasiblesafeapproachofferingsymptomreliefeliminatingneedinterventionsEarly-termresultsdysfunctionalpositionBioprostheticinterventionalcardiologytetralogyFallot

Similar Articles

Cited By