DOI:

Bioprosthetic failure: the next step in endovascular valve implantation?

Rachid Zegdi1,2*, MD, PhD; Antoine Lafont2,3, MD, PhD, FESC; Didier Blanchard, MD; Jean-Noël Fabiani1,2, MD

Introduction

Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is the most frequent long-term complication of implanted bioprostheses (BP). Redo prosthetic valve replacement has remained, until now, the sole effective treatment for severely deteriorated bioprosthetic valves, but this procedure carries an increased operative risk in comparison to the first operation1. With the broadening of the indication of bioprosthetic valve replacement, more and more cases are expected to occur in the future, particularly in elderly patients. Endovascular valve implantation (VI) might be a valuable alternative to conventional surgery in this high risk population.

Endovascular VI has already been performed in patients suffering from aortic stenosis or pulmonary insufficiency using either balloon expandable or self-expandable valved stents2-4. A major problem encountered with percutaneous VI is the impossibility to readjust the position of a valved stent (VS) once fully deployed. Bad positioning of the VS could lead to a fatal peri-procedural issue3. None of the available VS has the potential to be repositioned after complete deployment5. Thus, being able to reposition a fully deployed VS could prove of crucial importance and would certainly favour the development of percutaneous VI by improving the safety of the procedure.

Methods and results

We have evaluated an original ancillary system allowing a self-expandable VS to be repositioned as often as necessary during the procedure. The prototype consisted in a semi-rigid delivery catheter made of polyvinyl chloride. Two sutures ran along the internal lumen of the delivery catheter. At their distal part, these two sutures encircled the VS, thus allowing its attachment to the tip of the catheter (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Valved stent attached to the tip of the delivery catheter (note the presence of 2 encircling sutures).

At their proximal part, the sutures were attached to a handle. Traction or relaxation of the handle was associated to compression or relaxation of the VS (video 1). Once deployed in adequate position, the VS was definitely released from the delivery catheter by pulling on a wire that controlled the attachment of the two sutures. The delivery catheter could then be withdrawn leaving the VS in place.

We developed an animal model of tricuspid bioprosthetic failure in sheep. This consisted in surgical implantation of a pericardial bioprosthesis, the anterior leaflet of which was torn. Severe tricuspid regurgitation was well documented in each case (n=5). Endovascular VI of the failed bioprosthesis was easily achieved in all cases (100% success rate). The procedure took no more than two minutes and was haemodynamically well tolerated. The repositioning capacity of the delivery device was confirmed in all experiments with no failure (video 2).

Bioprosthetic failure was always corrected, with no residual intra- or periprosthetic leak on echocardiography. Anatomic study revealed the excellent location of the VS inside the failed BP (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Apical view of the heart (the right atrium and the anterior part of the right ventricle have been resected) showing excellent positioning of the stented valve inside the failed bioprosthesis.

No macroscopic evidence of injury to the VS was noticed.

In order to achieve adequate positioning of the VS, right ventricular pacing or use of extracorporeal circulation during VS delivery has been recommended by others. With the present device, these potentially deleterious strategies are likely to be unnecessary, as it was the case in our experimental study. This original delivery device permitted the reversibility of the VS positioning as many times as needed prior to the final release. This relied on a simple manoeuvre (compression-relaxation of the VS) that could be performed by one operator only.

The VS we used in this experiment was made of a self-expandable braided nitinol stent. A porcine aortic stentless valve (Toronto SPV, model SPA-101-25, St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was fixed to the stent using 4/0 mattress sutures. The design of the delivery system allows other VS (with pericardial or polymeric leaflets, for example) to be used provided that their stent is self-expandable. The number of the encircling sutures will mainly depend on the stent length, but should be as low as possible (one or two) for easiest handling.

Conclusion

Although our experimental investigation was limited to the treatment of bioprosthetic failure, this new technology is easily applicable to the treatment of other valvular diseases, such as pulmonary insufficiency or aortic stenosis. One may also anticipate that the safety improvement conferred by this new technology will certainly favour the development of percutaneous VI in clinical practice.

Online data supplement

Video 1. Compression or relaxation of the valved stent

Video 2. Location of the VS inside the failed bioprostheses

Volume 3 Number 1
May 22, 2007
Volume 3 Number 1
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00027 Jul 7, 2025
Antithrombotic strategies after TAVI in light of cerebral microembolism
Dangas G and Nicolas J
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00028 Jul 7, 2025
The challenge of interpreting comparative TAVI studies
Rosseel L et al
free

Research Correspondence

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-01113 Jul 7, 2025
Restenosis patterns after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-coated balloons for de novo coronary lesions
Matsuda K et al

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00019 Jul 7, 2025
Colchicine benefits are overestimated and current recommendations are too strong: pros and cons
Bainey K and Rossello X

Expert Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-01003 Jul 7, 2025
Current and future applications of robotics in structural heart interventions
Chen X et al

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00024 Jul 7, 2025
The new balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve: only good news?
Pibarot P and Van Belle E
free
Trending articles
172.05

Focus article

10.4244/EIJY19M08_01 Jan 17, 2020
EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update
Glikson M et al
free
79.55

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00066 Apr 21, 2025
Management of complications after valvular interventions
Bansal A et al
free
42

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00331 May 21, 2025
One-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by prasugrel monotherapy at a reduced dose: the 4D-ACS randomised trial
Jang Y et al
open access
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved