Submitted: 07 Jul 2018
Revision: 22 Oct 2018
Accepted: 15 Nov 2018
ePublished: 09 Dec 2018
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2018;10(4): 182-186.
doi: 10.15171/jcvtr.2018.31
PMID: 30680074
PMCID: PMC6335986
  Abstract View: 633
  PDF Download: 356

Original Article

Outcomes following transcatheter transseptal versus transapical mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring procedures

Salik Nazir 1 * ORCID logo, Saroj Lohani 1, Niranjan Tachamo 1, Muhammad Sohail Khan 1, Bidhya Timilsina 1, Faraz Khan Luni 2, Anthony Donato 3

1 Department of Medicine, Reading Hospital-Tower Health System, West Reading, Pennsylvania, USA
2 Division of Cardiology, Mercy Saint Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, USA
3 Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA


Introduction: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) & valve-in-ring (ViR) are relatively novel therapeutic alternatives for patients with degenerated bioprostheses or failed annuloplasty rings whose reoperative risk is too high. The predominant procedural access for both procedures is transapical or transseptal. However, whether there are differences in outcomes of this procedure using transseptal versus transapical access has not yet been defined.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of all published articles from MEDLINE and EMBASE to explore the outcomes of these two procedural approaches.
Results: A total of 55 studies including 183 patients (154 ViV and 29 ViR) were included. Patients that underwent ViV (101 transapical and 53 transseptal) using the transseptal approach required more iatrogenic atrial septal defect (ASD) closure (19% versus 0.0 %; P < 0.001) and hence had a lower device success rate (68% versus 89%; P = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in procedural success and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Overall severe bleeding complications (major or life threatening) were not different the two groups (3.7% versus 7.9%; P = 0.321). In the ViR group (19 transapical and 10 transseptal), no difference in procedural success, device success or 30-day outcomes were identified between transseptal and transapical groups, although sample size was small.
Conclusion: In conclusion, mitral ViV and ViR using the two different procedural approaches appear to confer equal and reasonable 30-day outcomes.
Keywords: Transcatheter, Transapical, Transseptal, Mitral Valve
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Security code

Abstract View: 633

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 356

Your browser does not support the canvas element.