672 TRANSCATHETER VS SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR PERCEVAL DEGENERATION: TAILORED STRATEGY FROM THE HEART TEAM


 Transcatheter treatment of degenerated aortic bioprostheses is nowadays a well-established option (Valve-in-vale, ViV); however, some patients may pose some specific challenges.
 Perceval® is a sutureless, stent-mounted, aortic valve bioprosthesis that can be placed with a less invasive surgical technique. Its nitinol self-expandable stent frame is a bulky structure that anchors to the aortic annulus without the need of continuous suture, thus reducing aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Perceval® may be associated with increased risk of coronary obstruction, impaired coronary access and increased post-procedural gradients.
 Here we present the cases of two patients with Perceval® degeneration that have been treated with two different tailored approaches following a dedicated Heart Team evaluation.
 R.M. is a 74-year-old, very low-weight, woman with a history of diabetes, severe COPD, 3b stage CKD, rheumatoid arthritis and previous carotid surgery. She underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with Perceval® “S” bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis in 2016. After five years she was diagnosed with severe symptomatic degeneration of the aortic prosthesis (mean gradient 45 mmHg, NYHA class III). The patient was therefore discussed by the Heart Team and scheduled for percutaneous treatment. A ViV with a self-expandable Medtronic 23 mm Evolut™ R bioprosthesis was successfully performed. Hospital stay was uneventful and the patient was discharged on 6th post-operative day in good clinical conditions and good functional class.
 S.R. is a 70-year-old active smoker woman with a history of previous hemicolectomy for cancer that underwent SAVR in ministernotomy for severe aortic stenosis with Perceval® “L” in 2015. In 2016 she underwent PCI + DES implantation on OM of LCX for an acute coronary syndrome. In 2022 she was diagnosed with severe symptomatic degeneration of the bioprosthesis (mean gradient 40 mmHg, NYHA class II). The patient was referred to Heart Team discussion and scheduled for surgical reintervention. She underwent successful surgery with implantation of a Medtronic Avalus™ 23 mm bioprosthesis, followed by regular rehabilitation.
 In the first case the severe comorbidities and frailty made the surgical risk almost prohibitive for reintervention (STS-M 9,23%, STS-MM 23,7%, Euroscore II 6,18%). Moreover, there was very little concern about the risk of impaired coronary access afterwards.
 The second patient, instead, had an acceptable risk for surgery (STS-M 2,2%, STS-MM 10,6%, Euroscore II 4.45%); there was also a significant concern about the risk of impaired coronary access in case of ViV, since she already had a history of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Furthermore, from a lifetime management point of view it is possible to hypothesize easier future reintervention with a TAVR in SAVR instead of a complex TAVR in TAVR in SAVR.
 Thus, although ViV was technically feasible in both cases with predictable good short-term outcomes, we decided for opposite treatments by looking at individualized long-term needs.
 In Conclusion the choice between surgical and transcatheter intervention must be based not only on careful evaluation of clinical, anatomical and procedural characteristics but also on future perspectives, especially in patients with longer life expectancy.