Key result
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprostheses presents unique clinical and anatomic challenges, which are reviewed alongside selection criteria, techniques, and outcomes.
Why the study?
Reoperative valve replacement carries a higher risk of morbidity and mortality when bioprosthetic valves fail, and transcatheter valve-in-valve therapy poses unique clinical and anatomic challenges.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates valve-in-valve implantation outcomes for surgical bioprosthetic valve failure, suggesting improved options.
When bioprosthetic cardiac valves fail, reoperative valve replacement carries a higher risk of morbidity and mortality compared with initial valve replacement. Transcatheter heart valve implantation may be a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for high-risk patients with native aortic stenosis, and valve-in-valve (V-in-V) implantation has been successfully performed for failed surgical bioprostheses in the aortic, mitral, pulmonic, and tricuspid positions. Despite some core similarities to transcatheter therapy of native valve disease, V-in-V therapy poses unique clinical and anatomic challenges. In this paper, we review the challenges, selection criteria, techniques, and outcomes of V-in-V implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gurvitch et al. (2011) conducted a review in Failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. Transcatheter valve-in-valve (V-in-V) implantation was evaluated. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprostheses presents unique clinical and anatomic challenges, which are reviewed alongside selection criteria, techniques, and outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: