Evidence on structural valve deterioration (SVD) after aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) remains limited. While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive option, its feasibility is unclear. This study aimed to characterize SVD patients post-AVNeo and to assess TAVR feasibility.

Methods

This retrospective study included 11 patients who underwent TAVR for SVD after AVNeo in Sendai Kousei Hospital between June 2017 and August 2024. Four patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and seven with aortic regurgitation (AR) due to SVD were included.

Results

AS-SVD group showed shorter time interval from AVNeo to TAVR (50.5 [28.3–98.3] vs. 107.0 [97.0–131.0] months, p = 0.04) and smaller aortic annulus area (316.5 [259.8–375.0] vs. 538.0 [440.0–582.0] mm², p = 0.005) than AR-SVD group. In TAVR, technical success was achieved in 91% of cases. Although coronary obstruction is a concern due to the long leaflet, no case occurred. Misidentification of the basal ring plane caused by the slack cusp resulted in second valve implantation (one case) and new conduction disturbance (two cases) due to deep implantation, and aortic contained rupture (one case) for oversized valve selection.

Conclusions

Rapid AS-SVD progression and AR-SVD occurring later than previously reported were observed, highlighting the need for further studies on AVNeo durability. TAVR after AVNeo was feasible. Special precautions for coronary obstruction may be unnecessary. Careful hinge point placement at the boundary between pericardial cusps and the annulus was a key to CT-based basal ring determination in patients after AVNeo.

Conflicts of Interest

Norio Tada is a clinical proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1D. Dvir, T. Bourguignon, C. M. Otto, et al., “Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves,” Circulation 137 (2018): 388–399.
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030729
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2I. Bouhout, A. Mazine, A. Ghoneim, et al., “Long-Term Results After Surgical Treatment of Paravalvular Leak in the Aortic and Mitral Position,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 151 (2016): 1260–1266.e1.
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.11.046
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3S. Ozaki, I. Kawase, H. Yamashita, et al., “Aortic Valve Reconstruction Using Self-Developed Aortic Valve Plasty System in Aortic Valve Disease,” Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 12 (2011): 550–553.
10.1510/icvts.2010.253682
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4S. Ozaki, I. Kawase, H. Yamashita, S. Uchida, M. Takatoh, and N. Kiyohara, “Midterm Outcomes After Aortic Valve Neocuspidization With Glutaraldehyde-Treated Autologous Pericardium,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 155 (2018): 2379–2387.
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.087
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5V. Bazylev, D. Tungusov, and A. Mikulyak, “Predictors of Mid-Term Avneo Insufficiency,” Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 38 (2023): e20220370.
10.21470/1678-9741-2022-0370
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6S. Neupane, H. Singh, J. Lämmer, et al., “Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Surgery for Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Dysfunction,” American Journal of Cardiology 121 (2018): 1593–1600.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.02.054
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7J. G. Webb, D. J. Murdoch, M. C. Alu, et al., “3-Year Outcomes After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprostheses,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 73 (2019): 2647–2655.
10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.483
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8N. Tada, N. Tanaka, K. Abe, and M. Hata, “Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation After Aortic Valve Neocuspidization Using Autologous Pericardium: A Case Report,” European Heart Journal—Case Reports 3 (2019): ytz105.
10.1093/ehjcr/ytz105
Google Scholar
9D. Capodanno, A. S. Petronio, B. Prendergast, et al., “Standardized Definitions of Structural Deterioration and Valve Failure in Assessing Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Bioprosthetic Valves: A Consensus Statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) Endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS),” European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 52 (2017): 408–417.
10.1093/ejcts/ezx244
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10P. Blanke, J. R. Weir-McCall, S. Achenbach, et al., “Computed Tomography Imaging in the Context of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)/Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR),” JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging 12 (2019): 1–24.
10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.003
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11A. M. Kasel, S. Cassese, S. Bleiziffer, et al., “Standardized Imaging for Aortic Annular Sizing,” JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging 6 (2013): 249–262.
10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.12.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12J. M. Khan, N. Kamioka, J. C. Lisko, et al., “Coronary Obstruction From TAVR in Native Aortic Stenosis,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 16 (2023): 415–425.
10.1016/j.jcin.2022.11.018
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13H. B. Ribeiro, J. G. Webb, R. R. Makkar, et al., “Predictive Factors, Management, and Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Obstruction Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 62 (2013): 1552–1562.
10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.040
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14J. H. Oh, Y. Kobayashi, G. Kang, et al., “Distance Between Valvular Leaflet and Coronary Ostium Predicting Risk of Coronary Obstruction During TAVR,” IJC Heart & Vasculature 37 (2021): 100917.
10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100917
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15J. M. Khan, D. Dvir, A. B. Greenbaum, et al., “Transcatheter Laceration of Aortic Leaflets to Prevent Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 11 (2018): 677–689.
10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.247
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 VARC-3 Writing Committee, P. Généreux, N. Piazza, M. C. Alu, et al., “Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated Endpoint Definitions for Aortic Valve Clinical Research,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 77 (2021): 2717–2746.
10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.038
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17J. G. Dumesnil and P. Pibarot, “Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch: An Update,” Current Cardiology Reports 13 (2011): 250–257.
10.1007/s11886-011-0172-7
PubMed Google Scholar
18S. T. Gould, S. Srigunapalan, C. A. Simmons, and K. S. Anseth, “Hemodynamic and Cellular Response Feedback in Calcific Aortic Valve Disease,” Circulation Research 113 (2013): 186–197.
10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.300154
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Y. Kuroda, A. Marui, Y. Arai, et al., “Impact of Dialysis in Patients Undergoing Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement,” Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 33 (2021): 348–353.
10.1093/icvts/ivab106
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20S. Unai, S. Ozaki, D. R. Johnston, et al., “Aortic Valve Reconstruction With Autologous Pericardium Versus a Bioprosthesis: The Ozaki Procedure in Perspective,” Journal of the American Heart Association 12 (2023): e027391.
10.1161/JAHA.122.027391
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21T. Ochiai, S.-H. Yoon, R. Sharma, et al., “Outcomes of Self-Expanding vs. Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Degenerated Aortic Surgical Bioprostheses—A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison,” Circulation Journal 82 (2018): 2655–2662.
10.1253/circj.CJ-18-0157
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22D. Ahmad, M. P. Sá, S. Yousef, et al., “Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement,” American Journal of Cardiology 231 (2024): 55–61.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.08.032
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume106, Issue1

July 1, 2025

Pages 610-620

SCAI Member Sign in

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Structural Valve Deterioration After Aortic Valve Neocuspidization

ABSTRACT

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Structural Valve Deterioration After Aortic Valve Neocuspidization

ABSTRACT

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Related

Information