Feasibility Study of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation With the Medtronic CoreValve System for Percutaneous Aortic Valve Replacement (PAVR) in Patients With a Failing Previously Surgically Implanted Aortic Bioprosthesis and Presenting a High Risk for Repeat Surgical Valve Replacement
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Aortic Valve Stenosis
- Sponsor
- Medtronic Bakken Research Center
- Enrollment
- 18
- Locations
- 3
- Primary Endpoint
- Percentage of MAE Free Subjects
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 7 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
The proposed investigation is a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized study to evaluate the immediate benefits (at discharge and at 30 days) in terms of performance and safety of the implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve PAV in a failing aortic bioprosthesis. In addition, the study aims to evaluate the performance and the safety of the implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve PAV in a failing aortic bioprosthesis at subsequent annual follow-ups out to 48 months post procedure.
These objectives will be achieved through the following endpoints:
- Primary safety endpoint - Composite of Major Adverse Events
- Primary performance endpoint - Technical and procedural success at discharge
Patient Population: Eligible subjects will be at least 75 years old, presenting with a failing aortic bioprosthesis (stenotic, incompetent or mixed) including homograft or stented or stentless heterograft, considered poor surgical candidates and necessitating repeat aortic valve replacement. Up to 20 patients will be included in up to four hospitals.
Investigators
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •\> 74 years old,
- •Symptomatic failing bioprosthetic aortic valve (stenotic, incompetent or mixed) confirmed by Doppler echocardiography,
- •Logistic EuroSCORE \> 15%, or
- •Any of the following criteria:
- •Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) \< 20%,
- •Creatinine clearance \< 20mL/min (estimation using the Cockcroft calculation),
- •Renal failure requiring dialysis,
- •Permanent and long lasting (\> 6 month duration) atrial fibrillation,
- •Cirrhosis of the liver (Child class A or B),
- •Respiratory impairment (FEV1 \< 1L),
Exclusion Criteria
- •Known hypersensitivity or contraindication to aspirin, heparin, ticlopidine and clopidogrel, Nitinol, or sensitivity to contrast media which cannot be pre-medicated,
- •Active infection or endocarditis,
- •Any intra left ventricular mass, thrombus or vegetation evidenced by Doppler echocardiography,
- •Mitral or tricuspid valvular insufficiency ³ grade 2+,
- •Prosthetic mitral or tricuspid valve,
- •Femoral and/or iliac and/or aortic vascular condition (stenosis, occlusion or tortuosity) that could complicate endovascular access to the aortic valve bioprosthesis,
- •Symptomatic carotid or vertebral artery narrowing (\> 70%) disease,
- •Aortic abdominal or thoracic aneurysm,
- •Bleeding diathesis or coagulopathy, or patient refuses blood transfusion,
- •Active peptic ulcer or has had upper gastrointestinal bleeding within the past 3 months before baseline,
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Percentage of MAE Free Subjects
Time Frame: 30 days post-procedure
Percentage of subjects without a composite major adverse event (MAE) at 30 days post procedure. the composite MAE includes: 1. MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiac or Cerebral Event): cardiac death, documented Mobitz type II second degree and third degree atrioventricular block, neurological events and surgical aortic valve replacement. 2. MAE: non cardiac death including sudden unexpected or unexplained death, cardiac tamponade, nonstructural valve dysfunction resulting in stenosis or regurgitation at the study valve not intrinsic to the valve itself, structural valve deterioration cardiogenic shock, operated valve endocarditis, valve thrombosis, aortic dissection/perforation, major bleeding event, peripheral embolic event and emergent revascularization procedure.
Technical Success.
Time Frame: 30 days post procedure
The number of subjects in whom technical success was achieved where technical success was defined based on the device functionality as judged by the investigator adressing the ability of the system (1) to access the failing bioprosthetic valve via a peripheral vessel with the delivery catheter and (2) to deploy the valve accurately across the failing bioprosthetic valve and (3) to remove intact delivery system.