Why the study?
Bioprosthetic mitral valve degeneration often necessitates reoperation in high-risk patients, creating a clinical need for less invasive treatment options like transcatheter heart valve therapies.
Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring procedures offer a feasible, less invasive therapeutic option for patients with failed surgical mitral bioprostheses or rings who are at elevated risk for reoperation.
Supports MVIV as reasonable alternative in high-risk patients; leaves open long-term durability versus redo surgery.
With heightened awareness of mitral valve disease and improvement in surgical techniques, the use of mitral valve bioprostheses has increased. There is a large aging population with prior surgical valvular interventions. Limited durability of the prosthesis due to valvular degeneration over time may necessitate the need for repair or replacement of the prior prosthesis in the future. This usually entails another surgical intervention in this population with elevated risk for a reoperation. There is an ongoing clinical need for newer, less invasive options that are feasible and carry a lower complication rate. The advent of transcatheter heart valve (THV) therapies has opened up a wide range of therapeutic options for treatment of a failed bioprosthesis. Their safety and feasibility are now well established. This article serves as a review of the currently available THVs for implantation in the mitral position, the pre-procedural assessment, the challenges associated with implantation, as well as outcomes associated with a mitral valve-in-valve (VIV) and a mitral valve-in-ring (VIR) procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agarwal et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: