Advanced Search

Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 June;57(3) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 June;57(3):372-80

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUETHE JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY

A Journal on Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgery

Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0021-9509

Online ISSN 1827-191X

 

The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 June;57(3):372-80

RECENT ADVANCES IN TRANSCATHETER MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT 

    REVIEWS

Mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves and rings

Michael GHOSH-DASTIDAR, Ashok NARAYANA, Ricardo BOIX, Vinayak BAPAT

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK

The transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure for failed aortic bioprostheses is recognized as an alternative treatment to conventional surgery in high-risk patients. This less invasive option has now been applied to failed mitral bioprostheses (VIV) or failed repairs i.e. valve-in-ring (VIR). In this emerging field, to get an optimal result, a good understanding of the design features of the failed surgical heart valve/ring, the transcatheter heart valve being used and their compatibility, is of paramount importance. Although similar in many ways to the aortic counterpart, a mitral VIV/VIR procedure can pose certain different challenges such as delayed migration and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. This review describes the features of bioprostheses, rings and THVs relevant to a VIV/VIR procedure, and also provides guidance regarding sizing, positioning and how to avoid some of the major complications therefore improving the chances of a successful outcome.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page