Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve

Sabine Bleiziffer, Magdalena Erlebach, Matheus Simonato, Philippe Pibarot, John Webb, Lukas Capek, Stephan Windecker, Isaac George, Jan Malte Sinning, Eric Horlick, Massimo Napodano, David M. Holzhey, Petur Petursson, Alfredo Cerillo, Nikolaos Bonaros, Enrico Ferrari, Mauricio G Cohen, Giselle Baquero, Tara L. Jones, Ankur KalraMichael J. Reardon, Adnan Chhatriwalla, Vasco Gama Ribeiro, Sami Alnasser, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Christian Jörg Rustenbach, Joachim Schofer, Santiago Garcia, Tobias Zeus, DIdier Champagnac, Raffi Bekeredjian, Ran Kornowski, Rüdiger Lange, Danny Dvir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event. Methods A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls). Results Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta -0.023; 95% CI -0.032 to -0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta -0.11; 95% CI -0.161 to -0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta -0.01; 95% CI -0.013 to -0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta -0.064; 95% CI -0.095 to -0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44). Conclusions Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)828-834
Number of pages7
JournalHeart
Volume104
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve Stenosis
Prostheses and Implants
Incidence
Aortic Valve
Bioprosthesis
Body Mass Index
Survival
Echocardiography
Hemodynamics

Keywords

  • prosthetic heart valves
  • transcatheter valve interventions
  • valve disease surgery
  • valvular heart disease

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Bleiziffer, S., Erlebach, M., Simonato, M., Pibarot, P., Webb, J., Capek, L., ... Dvir, D. (2018). Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart, 104(10), 828-834. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422

Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. / Bleiziffer, Sabine; Erlebach, Magdalena; Simonato, Matheus; Pibarot, Philippe; Webb, John; Capek, Lukas; Windecker, Stephan; George, Isaac; Sinning, Jan Malte; Horlick, Eric; Napodano, Massimo; Holzhey, David M.; Petursson, Petur; Cerillo, Alfredo; Bonaros, Nikolaos; Ferrari, Enrico; Cohen, Mauricio G; Baquero, Giselle; Jones, Tara L.; Kalra, Ankur; Reardon, Michael J.; Chhatriwalla, Adnan; Gama Ribeiro, Vasco; Alnasser, Sami; Van Mieghem, Nicolas M.; Rustenbach, Christian Jörg; Schofer, Joachim; Garcia, Santiago; Zeus, Tobias; Champagnac, DIdier; Bekeredjian, Raffi; Kornowski, Ran; Lange, Rüdiger; Dvir, Danny.

In: Heart, Vol. 104, No. 10, 01.05.2018, p. 828-834.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bleiziffer, S, Erlebach, M, Simonato, M, Pibarot, P, Webb, J, Capek, L, Windecker, S, George, I, Sinning, JM, Horlick, E, Napodano, M, Holzhey, DM, Petursson, P, Cerillo, A, Bonaros, N, Ferrari, E, Cohen, MG, Baquero, G, Jones, TL, Kalra, A, Reardon, MJ, Chhatriwalla, A, Gama Ribeiro, V, Alnasser, S, Van Mieghem, NM, Rustenbach, CJ, Schofer, J, Garcia, S, Zeus, T, Champagnac, DI, Bekeredjian, R, Kornowski, R, Lange, R & Dvir, D 2018, 'Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve', Heart, vol. 104, no. 10, pp. 828-834. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422
Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M, Pibarot P, Webb J, Capek L et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart. 2018 May 1;104(10):828-834. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422
Bleiziffer, Sabine ; Erlebach, Magdalena ; Simonato, Matheus ; Pibarot, Philippe ; Webb, John ; Capek, Lukas ; Windecker, Stephan ; George, Isaac ; Sinning, Jan Malte ; Horlick, Eric ; Napodano, Massimo ; Holzhey, David M. ; Petursson, Petur ; Cerillo, Alfredo ; Bonaros, Nikolaos ; Ferrari, Enrico ; Cohen, Mauricio G ; Baquero, Giselle ; Jones, Tara L. ; Kalra, Ankur ; Reardon, Michael J. ; Chhatriwalla, Adnan ; Gama Ribeiro, Vasco ; Alnasser, Sami ; Van Mieghem, Nicolas M. ; Rustenbach, Christian Jörg ; Schofer, Joachim ; Garcia, Santiago ; Zeus, Tobias ; Champagnac, DIdier ; Bekeredjian, Raffi ; Kornowski, Ran ; Lange, Rüdiger ; Dvir, Danny. / Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. In: Heart. 2018 ; Vol. 104, No. 10. pp. 828-834.
@article{b6459cf73e20418596ef2e1788a67ba2,
title = "Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve",
abstract = "Objective We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event. Methods A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls). Results Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61{\%} of the patients, and severe in 24.6{\%}. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9{\%}. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta -0.023; 95{\%} CI -0.032 to -0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta -0.11; 95{\%} CI -0.161 to -0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta -0.01; 95{\%} CI -0.013 to -0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta -0.064; 95{\%} CI -0.095 to -0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9{\%} severe vs 91.5{\%} moderate vs 89.3{\%} none, P=0.44). Conclusions Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.",
keywords = "prosthetic heart valves, transcatheter valve interventions, valve disease surgery, valvular heart disease",
author = "Sabine Bleiziffer and Magdalena Erlebach and Matheus Simonato and Philippe Pibarot and John Webb and Lukas Capek and Stephan Windecker and Isaac George and Sinning, {Jan Malte} and Eric Horlick and Massimo Napodano and Holzhey, {David M.} and Petur Petursson and Alfredo Cerillo and Nikolaos Bonaros and Enrico Ferrari and Cohen, {Mauricio G} and Giselle Baquero and Jones, {Tara L.} and Ankur Kalra and Reardon, {Michael J.} and Adnan Chhatriwalla and {Gama Ribeiro}, Vasco and Sami Alnasser and {Van Mieghem}, {Nicolas M.} and Rustenbach, {Christian J{\"o}rg} and Joachim Schofer and Santiago Garcia and Tobias Zeus and DIdier Champagnac and Raffi Bekeredjian and Ran Kornowski and R{\"u}diger Lange and Danny Dvir",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "828--834",
journal = "Heart",
issn = "1355-6037",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve

AU - Bleiziffer, Sabine

AU - Erlebach, Magdalena

AU - Simonato, Matheus

AU - Pibarot, Philippe

AU - Webb, John

AU - Capek, Lukas

AU - Windecker, Stephan

AU - George, Isaac

AU - Sinning, Jan Malte

AU - Horlick, Eric

AU - Napodano, Massimo

AU - Holzhey, David M.

AU - Petursson, Petur

AU - Cerillo, Alfredo

AU - Bonaros, Nikolaos

AU - Ferrari, Enrico

AU - Cohen, Mauricio G

AU - Baquero, Giselle

AU - Jones, Tara L.

AU - Kalra, Ankur

AU - Reardon, Michael J.

AU - Chhatriwalla, Adnan

AU - Gama Ribeiro, Vasco

AU - Alnasser, Sami

AU - Van Mieghem, Nicolas M.

AU - Rustenbach, Christian Jörg

AU - Schofer, Joachim

AU - Garcia, Santiago

AU - Zeus, Tobias

AU - Champagnac, DIdier

AU - Bekeredjian, Raffi

AU - Kornowski, Ran

AU - Lange, Rüdiger

AU - Dvir, Danny

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Objective We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event. Methods A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls). Results Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta -0.023; 95% CI -0.032 to -0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta -0.11; 95% CI -0.161 to -0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta -0.01; 95% CI -0.013 to -0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta -0.064; 95% CI -0.095 to -0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44). Conclusions Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.

AB - Objective We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event. Methods A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls). Results Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta -0.023; 95% CI -0.032 to -0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta -0.11; 95% CI -0.161 to -0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta -0.01; 95% CI -0.013 to -0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta -0.064; 95% CI -0.095 to -0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44). Conclusions Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.

KW - prosthetic heart valves

KW - transcatheter valve interventions

KW - valve disease surgery

KW - valvular heart disease

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046453775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046453775&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422

DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422

M3 - Article

C2 - 29352008

AN - SCOPUS:85046453775

VL - 104

SP - 828

EP - 834

JO - Heart

JF - Heart

SN - 1355-6037

IS - 10

ER -