Valve-in-Valve Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Concomitant Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used, as older high-risk patient populations require repeat aortic valve replacements. The most common approach to ViV-TAVR is through a transfemoral approach or alternative vascular access sites, such as transcarotid or transsubclavian TAVR. Within this population, some patients become ineligible for ViV-TAVR due to contraindications, such as severe peripheral vascular disease, necessitating an alternative. Transapical TAVR allows for TAVR even in the context of severe peripheral vascular disease, although it has rarely been used in the ViV-TAVR setting, and even less frequently with concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention. CASE REPORT We present the case of a 79-year-old man with a history of coronary artery disease and aortic valve disease 9 years after coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement presenting with progressive dyspnea on exertion. The patient was found to have severe prosthetic valve degeneration but had a high preoperative surgical risk score and severe peripheral arterial disease. Transfemoral, carotid, and subclavian access were contraindicated given the severe vascular disease, and therefore the patient underwent transapical ViV-TAVR with a 26-mm Sapien S3 valve and a left main coronary artery snorkel stent for protection of the left main coronary. CONCLUSIONS With this rare documented case of transapical ViV-TAVR, we highlight the importance of having several available alternative surgical approaches to TAVR for patients who are ineligible for transfemoral ViV-TAVR and have high preoperative risk scores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".