Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation with the Portico device achieved a 69.6% device success rate and an 8.9% mortality rate at 1-year follow-up.
Why the study?
Limited evidence from early experience with the Portico system did not allow for a full assessment of its safety and efficacy in patients undergoing TAVI for failed surgical bioprostheses.
Does TAVI-ViV with the Portico device provide safe and effective outcomes in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses?
Cohort (n=56)
No
Does TAVI-ViV with the Portico device provide safe and effective outcomes in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses?
TAVI-ViV with the Portico valve demonstrates acceptable procedural success and 1-year safety in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses, though residual gradients ≥20 mmHg are associated with higher cardiovascular hospitalization.
Feasibility of Portico TAVI-ViV suggested in small series; leaves open need for larger comparative studies on durability and outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the procedural and mid-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failed surgical bioprostheses (TAVI-ViV) with Portico device. BACKGROUND: Limited evidence coming from early experience on Portico system does not allow to fully assess safety and efficacy of this device in this ViV patients. METHODS: From January 2016 up to June 2019, 56 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI-ViV with Portico were prospectively included in our institutional TAVI database. RESULTS: The prevalent mechanism of failure was stenosis (58.9%); true internal diameter (ID) was <21 mm in 71.4% of cases. Device success rate were 69.6% with 14 (25%) patients showing a residual gradient ≥20 mmHg, 2 (3.6%) a PVL ≥ moderate and 1 (1.8%) required a second THV implantation due to device embolization. At 1-year follow-up 5 patients (8.9%) died whereas moderate SVD was reported in 2 (3.6%). Patients with a post-procedural mean gradient ≥20 mmHg showed a significantly higher rate of CV hospitalization (21.4% vs. 2.4%, p = .02) whereas no differences in procedural and 1-year outcomes were noticed according to true ID diameter or degeneration mode. Chimney stenting (ChT) was performed in 23 (41%) patients without significant differences in procedural and 1-year outcomes compared to non-ChT group. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI-ViV with Portico valve was associated with good procedural and 1-year outcomes, even in patients with features of high procedural and anatomical complexity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Casenghi et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Failed surgical bioprostheses (n=56). TAVI-ViV with Portico device was evaluated on Device success rate. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation with the Portico device achieved a 69.6% device success rate and an 8.9% mortality rate at 1-year follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: