Impact of patient–prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated bioprostheses

ObjectiveTranscatheter valve-in-valve implantation is evolving as an alternative to reoperative valve replacement in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses. Nevertheless, hemodynamic performance is limited by the previously implanted xenograft. We report our experience with patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after valve-in-valve implantation in the aortic position.MethodsEleven patients (aged 79.3 ± 6.1 years) received transapical implantation of a balloon-expandable pericardial heart valve into a degenerated bioprosthesis (size, 23.9 ± 1.6 mm; range, 21–27 mm) in the aortic position. All patients were considered high risk for surgical valve replacement (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, 31.8% ± 24.1%). Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.65 cm2/m2, determined by discharge echocardiography.ResultsSevere PPM was evident in 5 patients (group 1) and absent in 6 patients (group 2). Mean transvalvular gradients decreased from 29.2 ± 15.4 mm Hg before implantation to 21.2 ± 9.7 mm Hg at discharge (group 1) and from 28.2 ± 9.0 mm Hg before implantation to 15.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg at discharge (group 2). Indexed effective orifice area increased from 0.5 ± 0.1 cm2/m2 to 0.6 ± 0.1 cm2/m2 and from 0.6 ± 0.3 cm2/m2 to 0.8 ± 0.3 cm2/m2. Aortic regurgitation decreased from grade 2.0 ± 1.1 to 0.4 ± 0.5 overall. No differences in New York Heart Association class improvement or survival during follow-up were observed. One patient required reoperation for symptomatic PPM 426 days after implantation.ConclusionsValve-in-valve implantation can be performed in high-risk surgical patients to avoid reoperation. However, PPM frequently occurs, making adequate patient selection crucial. Small bioprostheses (