Key result
Percutaneous valve-in-valve implantation in dysfunctional pulmonary bioprosthetic valves significantly reduced systolic right ventricular pressure from 64.0 to 31.3 mmHg (p<0.001).
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of percutaneous valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed dysfunctional pulmonary bioprosthetic valves.
Does percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (valve-in-valve) improve hemodynamics in patients with dysfunctional bioprosthetic pulmonary valves?
Observational (n=20)
No
Does percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (valve-in-valve) improve hemodynamics in patients with dysfunctional bioprosthetic pulmonary valves?
Absolute Event Rate: 31.3% vs 64%
p-value: p=<0.001
Percutaneous pulmonary valve-in-valve implantation is a feasible and effective approach for treating dysfunctional bioprosthetic pulmonary valves, significantly improving hemodynamics and avoiding repeat surgery.
Valve-in-valve implantation was associated with reduced RV pressure and gradient; leaves open durability and safety in prospective cohorts.
Background: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed bioprosthetic valves. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent percutaneous valve-in-valve procedures between July 2014 and September 2023. These patients had previously received pulmonary bioprosthetic valves via surgical or transcatheter methods. Results: The study included 20 patients (13 males, 7 females; mean age: 20.4±7.1 years; range, 10.8 to 35.8 years). Preprocedural assessment revealed stenotic dysfunction in 12 patients, regurgitant dysfunction in two patients, and a combination of both in six patients. Following implantation, there was a notable improvement in invasive measurements; systolic right ventricular pressure decreased from 64.0±24.5 mmHg to 31.3±6.7 mmHg (p<0.001), right ventricular outflow tract gradient from 44.0±23.2 mmHg to 7.6±5.8 mmHg (p<0.001), and echocardiographic pulmonary regurgitation grade from 2.1±1.2 to 0.2±0.4 (p<0.001). The median time between initial bioprosthetic pulmonary valve placement and valve-in-valve procedure was 8.2 years (IQR, 6.2 to 9.9 years). The median follow-up duration was 24.8 months (IQR, 8.3 to 40.2 months). Only one patient required a repeat PPVI procedure 10 years after the valve-in-valve procedure, while no other patients required reintervention during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed bioprosthetic valves is a feasible and safe approach, offering symptom relief and eliminating the need for further surgical interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duras et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Dysfunctional bioprosthetic valves in pulmonary position (n=20). Percutaneous valve-in-valve implantation vs. Preprocedural baseline was evaluated on Systolic right ventricular pressure (mmHg) (p=<0.001). Percutaneous valve-in-valve implantation in dysfunctional pulmonary bioprosthetic valves significantly reduced systolic right ventricular pressure from 64.0 to 31.3 mmHg (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: