Comparative differences of mitral valve-in-valve implantation: A new mitral bioprosthesis versus current mosaic and epic valves
Recommended Citation
Wang DD, O'Neill BP, Caranasos TG, Chitwood WR, Jr., Stack RS, and O'Neill WW. Comparative differences of mitral valve-in-valve implantation: A new mitral bioprosthesis versus current mosaic and epic valves. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
11-29-2021
Publication Title
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) valve-in-valve (VIV) outcomes in three different mitral bioprostheses (of comparable measured internal diameters) under stable hemodynamic and surgical conditions by bench, echocardiographic, computerized tomography (CT), and autopsy comparisons pre- and post-valve implantation in a porcine model under matched controlled conditions.
BACKGROUND: Impact of surgical bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV procedures is unknown.
METHODS: Fifteen similar-sized Yorkshire pigs underwent pre-procedural CT screening. Twelve had consistent anatomic features and underwent implantation of mitral bioprostheses. Four valves from each of three manufacturers were implanted in randomized fashion: 27-mm Epic, 27-mm Mosaic, and 25-mm Mitris, followed by TMVR VIV with 26 Edwards Sapien3. Post-VIV, suprasternal TEE studies were performed to assess hemodynamic function, followed by a gated contrast CT. After euthanasia, animals underwent necropsy for anatomic evaluation.
RESULTS: All 12 animals had successful VIV implantation with no study deaths. The post vivMitris (3.77 ± 0.36)/(2.2 ± 0.25 mmHg) had the lowest peak/mean trans-mitral gradient and the vivEpic the highest (15.5 ± 2.55)/(7.09 ± 1.13 mmHg). All THVs (transcatheter heart valves) had greatest deformation within the center of the THV frame; with the smallest waist opening area in the vivEpic (329 ± 35.8 mm(2) ) and greatest in the vivMitris (414 ± 33.12 mm(2) ). Bioprosthetic frames without obvious radiopaque markers resulted in the most ventricular implantation of the THV's anteroseptal frame (Epic: -4.52 ± 0.76 mm), versus the most radiopaque bioprosthesis (Mitris: -1.18 ± 2.95 mm), and higher peak LVOT gradients (Epic: 4.82 ± 1.61 mmHg; Mitris: 2.91 ± 1.47 mmHg).
CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates marked variations in hemodynamics, THV opening area, and anatomic dimensions among measured similarly sized mitral bioprostheses. These data suggest a critical need for understanding the potential impact of variations in bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV clinical outcomes.
PubMed ID
34843639
ePublication
ePub ahead of print
