Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026

Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement from Autologous Pericardium with a Self-Expandable Nitinol Stent in an Adult Sheep Model
Published on: June 8, 2022
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using Corevalve Revalving System for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses
Francesco Bedogni1, Maria Luisa Laudisa, Samuele Pizzocri
1Istituto Clinico S. Ambrogio, Department of Interventional Cardiology, Milan, Italy.
Insights
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) is effective for patients with failed bioprostheses. This valve-in-valve procedure offers a feasible treatment option for high-risk individuals unsuitable for surgical redo.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) is a viable treatment for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.
- CRS TAVI may be a suitable alternative for patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis, particularly when surgical redo carries prohibitive risks.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the performance and outcomes of CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) implantation in patients with previously implanted failed aortic bioprostheses.
- To assess the feasibility and efficacy of the valve-in-valve procedure for managing failed bioprosthetic valves in high-risk surgical candidates.
Main Methods:
- A cohort of 25 high-risk patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves underwent CRS valve-in-valve implantation.
- Patients were categorized into Type A (predominantly stenosis) and Type B (predominantly regurgitation) based on the mode of bioprosthesis failure.
- Demographic and clinical data, including age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, logistic EuroSCORE, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, were collected.
Main Results:
- The implantation success rate was 100%, with significant reduction in mean aortic gradient in Type A patients (77.6 to 34.6 mm Hg).
- Post-implantation, significant regurgitation was absent in most Type B patients. No procedural mortality occurred.
- At 30 days, complications included 3 deaths (12%), 2 myocardial infarctions (8%), and 3 atrioventricular blocks requiring pacemakers (12%). At 6 months, survival was 84% with a cumulative pacemaker incidence of 16%.
Conclusions:
- CoreValve Revalving System (CRS) implantation is a feasible and effective treatment for failed aortic bioprostheses, irrespective of the primary failure mode (stenosis or regurgitation).
- This valve-in-valve approach offers a significant therapeutic option for patients with failed bioprostheses who are at prohibitive risk for conventional surgical reoperation.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Heart Valves
The AV valves prevent the backflow of blood from the ventricles to the atria during ventricular contraction. These valves function with the assistance of the chordae tendineae and papillary muscles. When the ventricles are relaxed, the chordae tendineae are slack, allowing blood to flow from the atria into the...
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction