Role of Transluminal Balloon Valvuloplasty in Staged Surgical Treatment of Left Ventricular Dysfunction After Prior Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

Introduction: The main disadvantage of bioprosthetic valves is the susceptibility of their leaflets to structural changes, leading to bioprosthetic valve dysfunction requiring a repeated surgical intervention. This group of patients is characterized by high comorbidity, which increases the risk of hospital mortality during repeated interventions. At the same time, low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main independent predictor of adverse outcomes. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation can be an alternative to an open intervention in patients with high surgical risk. However, this technique is often associated with prosthesis-patient mismatch due to a smaller effective orifice area of a bioprosthetic valve, as well as with the high incidence of intraventricular conduction disorders and/or the need for a pacemaker, preventing the LVEF recovery even in the late period after the procedure.

Objective: To demonstrate the role of transluminal balloon valvuloplasty in staged surgical treatment of bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. Case report: We present our experience of successful staged surgical treatment of biodegenerative dysfunction of a biological prosthetic aortic valve using balloon valvuloplasty followed by “open” repeated valve replacement in a patient at very high cardiovascular risk.

Conclusions: This staged approach may be justified in patients with extremely low LVEF to minimize risks and improve surgical outcomes.

1. Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(1):82–90. PMID: 19154908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015

2. Fernandez FG, Shahian DM, Kormos R, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database 2019 Annual Report. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(6):1625–1632. PMID: 31654621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.034

3. Ben-Dor I, Pichard AD, Satler LF, et al. Complications and outcome of balloon aortic valvuloplasty in high-risk or inoperable patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(11):1150–156. PMID: 21087751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.08.014

4. Writing Committee Members, Otto CM, Nishimura RA, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(4):450–500. Published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(9):1276. PMID: 33342587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.035

5. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al; ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561– 632. Published correction appears in Eur Heart J. 2022. PMID: 34453165. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395

6. Barbarash LS, Rogulina NV, Rutkovskaya NV, Ovcharenko EA. Mechanisms underlying bioprosthetic heart valve dysfunctions. Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2018;7(2):10–24. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17802/2306-1278-2018-7-2-10-24

7. Salaun E, Côté N, Clavel MA, Pibarot P. Biomarkers of aortic bioprosthetic valve structural degeneration. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2019;34(2):132–139. PMID: 30562183. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000590

8. Farivar RS, Cohn LH. Hypercholesterolemia is a risk factor for bioprosthetic valve calcification and explantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126(4):969–975. PMID: 14566234. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5223(03)00708-6

9. Mahjoub H, Mathieu P, Sénéchal M, et al. ApoB/ApoA-I ratio is associated with increased risk of bioprosthetic valve degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(7):752–761. PMID: 23410546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.033

10. Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Lucà F, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with faster degeneration of bioprosthetic valve: results from a propensity score-matched Italian multicenter study. Circulation. 2012;125(4):604–614. Published correction appears in Circulation. 2012;125(4). Published correction appears in Circulation. 2012;125(9):e431. PMID: 22203696. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.025064

11. Tourmousoglou C, Rao V, Lalos S, Dougenis D. What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20(6):837–843. PMID: 25754372. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivv037

12. Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, Rocha P, Berland J, Letac B. Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement?. Lancet. 1986;1(8472):63–67. PMID: 2867315. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90716-6

13. Otto CM, Mickel MC, Kennedy JW, et al. Three-year outcome after balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Insights into prognosis of valvular aortic stenosis. Circulation. 1994;89(2):642–650. PMID: 8313553. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.89.2.642

14. Zhong J, Kamp N, Bansal A, et al. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty in the modern era: a review of outcomes, indications, and technical advances. Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. 2023;2(4):101002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101002

15. Doguet F, Godin M, Lebreton G, et al. Aortic valve replacement after percutaneous valvuloplasty--an approach in otherwise inoperable patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38(4):394–399. PMID: 20338774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.02.016