I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
Rivista sulle Malattie del Cuore e dei Vasi
Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752
Minerva Cardioangiologica 2016 December;64(6):581-5
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation and sutureless aortic valve replacement: two strategies for one goal in redo patients
Giuseppe SANTARPINO 1, Lars E. PIETSCH 1, Jürgen JESSL 2, Steffen PFEIFFER 1, Francesco POLLARI 1, Matthias PAUSCHINGER 2, Theodor FISCHLEIN 1 ✉
1 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiovascular Center, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany; 2 Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Center, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate approach for high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses remains a matter of debate. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and hemodynamic outcome of redo patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (VinV-TAVI) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR), with assessment of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in the perioperative and follow-up period.
METHODS: From 2010, 343 patients underwent TAVI and 220 patients underwent sutureless AVR at our institution. Among these, 14 patients had prior bioprosthetic AVR and indication for reintervention because of valve degeneration. Patients from the TAVI group (N.=6) underwent VinV-TAVI, and patients from the sutureless group (N.=8) underwent redo AVR.
RESULTS: Mean age was 78.8±3 years in the sutureless group and 80.2±2.3 in the VinV-TAVI group. Logistic EuroSCORE was 36.4±24.1% and 33.8±13.8% in the sutureless and VinV-TAVI group, respectively. There was no in-hospital death. No patient was lost to follow-up (21±13 months, range 6 to 42). Quality of life measured with the EQ-5D questionnaire improved by 65% in the sutureless group and by 67% in the VinV-TAVI group. At follow-up echocardiographic evaluation, no paravalvular leak or intraprosthetic regurgitation was observed in either group. The mean iEOA was 0.96±0.08 vs. 0.71±0.15 cm2/m2 in the sutureless vs. VinV-TAVI group.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing redo aortic valve surgery for degenerated bioprostheses, both VinV-TAVI and sutureless AVR are effective in terms of clinical outcome. As regards echocardiographic evaluation, no leak was observed in either group and no cases of severe PPM were recorded in the sutureless group.