Circulation, 25 September 2020 Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement: Comprehensive Mid-Term Evaluation of Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Implantation from the VIVID Registry. Simonato M, Whisenant B, Barbosa Ribeiro H, Webb JG, Kornowski R, Guerrero M, Wijeysundera H, Søndergaard L, De Backer O, Villablanca P, Rihal C, Eleid M, Kempfert J, Unbehaun A, Erlebach M, Casselman F, Adam M, Montorfano M, Ancona M, Saia F, Ubben T, Meincke F, Napodano M, Codner P, Schofer J, Pelletier M, Cheung A, Shuvy M, Palma JH, Gaia DF, Duncan A, Hildick-Smith D, Veulemans V, Sinning JM, Arbel Y, Testa L, de Weger A, Eltchaninoff H, Hemery T, Landes U, Tchetche D, Dumonteil N, Rodés-Cabau J, Kim WK, Spargias K, Kourkoveli P, Ben-Yehuda O, Campante Teles R, Barbanti M, Fiorina C, Thukkani A, Mackensen GB, Jones N, Presbitero P, Petronio AS, Allali A, Champagnac D, Bleiziffer S, Rudolph T, Iadanza A, Salizzoni S, Agrifoglio M, Nombela-Franco L, Bonaros N, Kass M, Bruschi G, Amabile N, Chhatriwalla A, Messina A, Hirji SA, Andreas M, Welsh R, Schoels W, Hellig F, Windecker S, Stortecky S, Maisano F, Stone GW, Dvir D

Background

Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining mid-term outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods

Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mmHg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. Results

A total of 1,079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5 years ± 12.5; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days [IQR 76 - 996 days]; median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year 772.5 days [IQR 510 - 1211.75 days]. Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV vs. 49.5% for ViR (p<0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve post-procedure was 5.7 ± 2.8 mmHg (≥5mmHg, 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients (p=0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% vs. 3.1%; p<0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% vs. 61.6%; p=0.02). The rates of MVARC-defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR vs. 41.3% ViV; p=0.01), mostly related to having post-procedural mean gradient ≥5mmHg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (SHR 4.67; 95% CI 1.74 - 12.56; p=0.002) and significant residual MR (SHR 7.88; 95% CI 2.88 - 21.53; p<0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions

Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve post-procedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.

Keywords: Hemodynamics, Valve-in-valve, Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement, Valve-in-ring, Elevated Gradients

Circulation. 2020 Sep