Key result
A valve-in-valve transcutaneous procedure resulted in severe structural valve deterioration and patient prosthesis mismatch 9 months post-implantation, requiring surgical root replacement.
Why the study?
Patient prosthesis mismatch after valve-in-valve transcutaneous aortic valve replacement may lead to accelerated structural valve deterioration, which requires further understanding.
Case Report (n=1)
Patient prosthesis mismatch in valve-in-valve procedures carries a potential risk of accelerated structural valve degeneration and should be carefully considered during planning.
An 82-year-old male patient underwent transfemoral aortic valve replacement (Medtronic CoreValve, 26 mm) as a valve-in-valve procedure 9 months ago. Previous history included aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis (St Jude Epic, 23 mm) 2 years ago. At present, the patient was referred with the diagnosis of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and severe aortic stenosis. Echocardiography detected a peak transvalvular pressure gradient of 95 mmHg, valve orifice area of 0.6 cm2 and severely calcified leaflets of the CoreValve prosthesis. The patient underwent successful open surgical aortic root replacement (Medtronic Freestyle, 25 mm). Root replacement was indicated to avoid recurrent PPM. The ‘CoreValve-Epic-Corpus’ was extracted in Toto (Panels A and B). Histopathology detected severe structural valve deterioration, as well as giant cell inflammation with evidence of endocarditis. PPM should be considered when planning valve-in-valve transcutaneous procedures due to the potential risk of accelerated structural valve degeneration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seeburger et al. (2012) conducted a case report in Severe aortic stenosis and patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (n=1). Valve-in-valve transcutaneous procedure (Medtronic CoreValve) was evaluated on Structural valve deterioration and patient prosthesis mismatch. A valve-in-valve transcutaneous procedure resulted in severe structural valve deterioration and patient prosthesis mismatch 9 months post-implantation, requiring surgical root replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: