Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using CoreValve revalving system for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses

Francesco Bedogni, Maria Luisa Laudisa, Samuele Pizzocri, Corrado Tamburino, Gian Paolo Ussia, Anna Sonia Petronio, Massimo Napodano, Angelo Ramondo, Patrizia Presbitero, Federica Ettori, Gennaro Santoro, Silvio Klugman, Federico De Marco, Nedy Brambilla, Luca Testa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) implantation in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses. Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CRS is an effective option in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. It may be an option for patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis, especially when the risk of a surgical redo is deemed prohibitive. Methods: CRS "valve-in-valve" implantation was performed in 25 high-risk patients with a failed bioprosthesis. Their mean age was 82.4 ± 3.2 years. New York Heart Association functional classes III and IV were present in 21 and 4 patients, respectively. The logistic EuroSCORE was 31.5 ± 14.8%, whereas the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 8.2 ± 4.2. Patients/prostheses were divided in type A (mainly stenotic, n = 9) and type B (mainly regurgitant, n = 16). Results: The implantation success rate was 100%. In group A, the peak aortic gradient significantly decreased from 77.6 ± 21.6 mm Hg to 34.6 ± 19.4 mm Hg (p = 0.001). In all but 2 patients in group B, no significant regurgitation was observed post-implantation. No patients died during the procedure. At 30 days, there were 3 deaths (12%), 2 myocardial infarctions (8%), and 3 atrioventricular blocks requiring pacemaker implantation (12%). At a mean follow-up of 6 months, there were another death (survival rate of 84%) and a pacemaker implantation (cumulative incidence of 16%). New York Heart Association functional class improved in all patients to I and II. Conclusions: CRS implantation was feasible and effective regardless of the prevalent mode of failure. This finding may significantly affect the treatment of patients with a failed bioprosthesis deemed at a prohibitive risk for surgical redo.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1228-1234
Number of pages7
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011


  • CoreValve Revalving System
  • failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis
  • TAVI

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using CoreValve revalving system for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this