Key result
Transapical J-valve mitral valve-in-valve implantation is linked to an ~8-mmHg reduction in transvalvular gradient at 1 year.
Why the study?
Prior to 2020 Sapien valve approval, commercially available short-frame valves for transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation were lacking. This study aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of transapical MVIV implantation using a reversely mounted J-valve.
Does transapical MVIV implantation using the J-valve system improve hemodynamics and survival in patients with failed bioprosthetic mitral valves?
Observational (n=19)
No
Does transapical MVIV implantation using the J-valve system improve hemodynamics and survival in patients with failed bioprosthetic mitral valves?
Transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation using the J-valve system is safe and effective, significantly reducing transvalvular gradients with high survival rates.
Gradient reduction with J-valve transapical MVIV may aid failed bioprostheses; leaves open durability and randomized comparisons.
BACKGROUND: Prior to the approval of the Sapien valve in 2020, there were no commercially available short-frame valves for transapical mitral valve-in-valve (MVIV) implantation. In January 2019, we first attempted the reverse mounted J-valve for transapical MVIV implantation with good clinical results. The present study aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of transapical MVIV implantation with the J-valve reversely mounted on the delivery system. METHODS: Patients who underwent transapical MVIV implantation using the J-valve were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2020 with a 1-year follow-up. Before the procedure, computed tomography (CT) angiography data were analyzed to determine the inner diameter, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), and coaxial angel. An oversize rate of 5-10% was used to select the J-valve depending on the scanned inner diameter of the original mitral bioprosthesis. During the procedure, the three U-shape graspers were one-to-one buckled with the three tissue valve struts with the assist of echo and fluoroscopy. The implant depth into the left atrium was a 0-20% part of the J-valve, and the valve was then released under rapid pacing. Post-balloon dilatation was used when needed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (mean age 70.05±11.19 years), with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.01%±4.20%, were included. By transesophageal echocardiography, we found that the mean transvalvular gradient was 6.21±2.63 mmHg. The mean follow-up time was 20.31±7.23 months, and the survival rate was 94.74% at the last follow-up. The transvalvular gradient decreased from 15.06±3.00 mmHg at basal to 7.13±2.28 mmHg at the 1-year follow-up (P<0.001). The left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) increased from 60.31%±7.30% to 59.94%±7.72% at the 1-year follow-up (P=0.863). Thirteen (81.25%) patients had no or trace paravalvular leak (PVL), two (12.50%) patients had minor PVL, one (6.25%) patient had moderate PVL, and there were no cases of major regurgitation at the 1-year transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) examination results. CONCLUSIONS: The J-valve reversely mounted on the delivery system can be used for transapical MVIV implantation with less operative morbidity and favourable outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Failed bioprosthetic mitral valve (n=19). Transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation using the J-valve system vs. Baseline was evaluated on Transvalvular gradient at 1-year follow-up (mmHg) (p=<0.001). Transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation using the J-valve system significantly decreased the transvalvular gradient from 15.06 mmHg at baseline to 7.13 mmHg at 1-year follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: