Feasibility of Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Sapien Valves Based on In Vivo Computed Tomography Assessment

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to assess the feasibility of repeat transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement for degenerated Sapien3 (S3) prostheses by simulating subsequent implantation of S3 or Evolut, using in vivo computed tomography–based sizing and the impact on coronary and patient-prosthesis mismatch risks. METHODS: Computed tomography scans from 356 patients with prior S3 TAV replacement implantation were analyzed. The in vivo sizing for second TAV based on averaged area of 3 levels of outflow, mid (narrowest) and inflow, was compared with in vitro recommendations, that is, same size as index S3 for second S3 and 1 size larger for Evolut. Risks of coronary obstruction and patient-prosthesis mismatch were determined by valve-to-aorta distance and estimated effective orifice area, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, the majority of patients (n=328; 92.1%) had underexpanded index S3 with an expansion area of 94% (91%–97%), leading to significant differences in size selection of the second TAV between in vivo and in vitro sizing strategies. Expansion area <89% served as a threshold, resulting in 1 size smaller than the in vitro recommendations were selected in 45 patients (13%) for S3-in-S3 and 13 (4%) for Evolut-in-S3, while the remaining patients followed in vitro recommendations ( P <0.01, in vivo versus in vitro sizing). Overall, 57% of total patients for S3-in-S3 simulation and 60% for Evolut-in-S3 were considered low risk for coronary complications. Deep index S3 implantation (odds ratio, 0.76 [interquartile range, 0.67–0.87]; P <0.001) and selecting Evolut as the second TAV (11% risk reduction in intermediate- or high-risk patients) reduced coronary risk. Estimated moderate or severe patient-prosthesis mismatch risk was 21% for S3-in-S3 and 1% for Evolut-in-S3, assuming optimal expansion of the second TAV. CONCLUSIONS: Redo-TAV replacement with S3-in-S3 and Evolut-in-S3 could be feasible with low risk to coronaries in ≈60% of patients, while the remaining 40% will be at intermediate or high risk. The feasibility of redo-TAV replacement is influenced by sizing strategy, type of second TAV, native annular anatomy, and implant depth.