Stefano Salizzoni

Prof. Stefano Salizzoni

Associate Professor, Division of Cardiac Surgery, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 April 2016 in Circulation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DMDoff B McElhinney
Doff B McElhinney
ACAllison K Cabalka
Allison K Cabalka
JAJamil A Aboulhosn
Jamil A Aboulhosn
AEAndreas Eicken
Andreas Eicken
YBYounes Boudjemline
Younes Boudjemline
VRValve-in-Valve International Database (VIVID) Registry
Valve-in-Valve International Database (VIVID) Registry
Background—: Off-label use of transcatheter aortic and pulmonary valve prostheses for tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (TVIV) within dysfunctional surgical tricuspid valve (TV) bioprostheses has been described in small reports. Methods and Results—: An international, multicenter registry was developed to collect data on TVIV cases. Patient-related factors, procedural details and outcomes, and follow-up data were analyzed. Valve-in-ring or heterotopic TV implantation procedures were not included. Data were collected on 156 patients with bioprosthetic TV dysfunction who underwent catheterization with planned TVIV. The median age was 40 years, and 71% of patients were in New York Heart Association class III or IV. Among 152 patients in whom TVIV was attempted with a Melody (n=94) or Sapien (n=58) valve, implantation was successful in 150, with few serious complications. After TVIV, both the TV inflow gradient and tricuspid regurgitation grade improved significantly. During follow-up (median, 13.3 months), 22 patients died, 5 within 30 days; all 22 patients were in New York Heart Association class III or IV, and 9 were hospitalized before TVIV. There were 10 TV reinterventions, and 3 other patients had significant recurrent TV dysfunction. At follow-up, 77% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II ( P <0.001 versus before TVIV). Outcomes did not differ according to surgical valve size or TVIV valve type. Conclusions—: TVIV with commercially available transcatheter prostheses is technically and clinically successful in patients of various ages across a wide range of valve size. Although preimplantation clinical status was associated with outcome, many patients in New York Heart Association class III or IV at baseline improved. TVIV should be considered a viable option for treatment of failing TV bioprostheses.

27 June 2020 in European Heart Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SBSabine Bleiziffer
Sabine Bleiziffer
MSMatheus Simonato
Matheus Simonato
JWJohn G Webb
John G Webb
JRJosep Rodés-Cabau
Josep Rodés-Cabau
PPPhilippe Pibarot
Philippe Pibarot
DDDanny Dvir
Danny Dvir
Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV. A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)]. The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

9 June 2015 in Heart
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LNLuis Nombela-Franco
Luis Nombela-Franco
HEHélène Eltchaninoff
Hélène Eltchaninoff
RZRalf Zahn
Ralf Zahn
Luca TestaLuca Testa
Luca Testa
MLMartin B Leon
Martin B Leon
JRJosep Rodés-Cabau
Josep Rodés-Cabau
Objectives Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a common entity in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but its influence on outcomes remains controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the clinical impact of and changes in significant (moderate–severe) MR in patients undergoing TAVR, overall and according to valve design (self-expandable (SEV) vs balloon-expandable (BEV)). Methods All national registries and randomised trials were pooled using meta-analytical guidelines to establish the impact of moderate–severe MR on mortality after TAVR. Studies reporting changes in MR after TAVR on an individual level were electronically searched and used for the analysis. Results Eight studies including 8015 patients (SEV: 3474 patients; BEV: 4492 patients) were included in the analysis. The overall 30-day and 1-year mortality was increased in patients with significant MR (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.92; HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.55, respectively), but a significant heterogeneity across studies was observed (p<0.05). The impact of MR on mortality was not different between SEV and BEV in meta-regression analysis for 30-day (p=0.360) and 1-year (p=0.388) mortality. Changes in MR over time were evaluated in nine studies including 1278 patients. Moderate–severe MR (SEV: 326 patients; BEV: 192 patients) improved in 50.5% of the patients at a median follow-up of 180 (30–360) days after TAVR, and the degree of improvement was greater in patients who had received a BEV (66.7% vs 40.8% in the SEV group, p=0.001). Conclusions Concomitant moderate–severe MR was associated with increased early and late mortality following TAVR. A significant improvement in MR severity was detected in half of the patients following TAVR, and the degree of improvement was greater in those patients who had received a BEV.

12 January 2021 in Circulation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MSMatheus Simonato
Matheus Simonato
BWBrian Whisenant
Brian Whisenant
HRHenrique Ribeiro
Henrique Ribeiro
JWJohn G. Webb
John G. Webb
RKRan Kornowski
Ran Kornowski
DDDanny Dvir
Danny Dvir
Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76–996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510–1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium–defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74–12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88–21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.

1 October 2013 in International Journal of Cardiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Fabrizio D'AscenzoFabrizio D'Ascenzo
Fabrizio D'Ascenzo
FCF. Conrotto
F. Conrotto
FGF. Giordana
F. Giordana
CMC. Moretti
C. Moretti
MDM. D'AMico
M. D'AMico
SMS. Marra
S. Marra

1 June 2016 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MSMatheus Simonato
Matheus Simonato
JWJohn Webb
John Webb
RKRan Kornowski
Ran Kornowski
AVAlec Vahanian
Alec Vahanian
CFChristian Frerker
Christian Frerker
DDDanny Dvir
Danny Dvir
Background—: Transcatheter valve implantation inside failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) may offer an advantage over reoperation. Supra-annular transcatheter valve position may be advantageous in achieving better hemodynamics after ViV. Our objective was to define targets for implantation that would improve hemodynamics after ViV. Methods and Results—: Cases from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry were analyzed using centralized core laboratory assessment blinded to clinical events. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of elevated postprocedural gradients (mean ≥20 mm Hg). Optimal implantation depths were defined by receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 292 consecutive patients (age, 78.9±8.7 years; 60.3% male; 157 CoreValve Evolut and 135 Sapien XT) were evaluated. High implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of elevated gradients in comparison with low implantation (CoreValve Evolut, 15% versus 34.2%; P =0.03 and Sapien XT, 18.5% versus 43.5%; P =0.03, respectively). Optimal implantation depths were defined: CoreValve Evolut, 0 to 5 mm; Sapien XT, 0 to 2 mm (0–10% frame height); sensitivities, 91.3% and 88.5%, respectively. The strongest independent correlate for elevated gradients after ViV was device position (high: odds ratio, 0.22; confidence interval, 0.1–0.52; P =0.001), in addition to type of device used (CoreValve Evolut: odds ratio, 0.5; confidence interval, 0.28–0.88; P =0.02) and surgical valve mechanism of failure (stenosis/mixed baseline failure: odds ratio, 3.12; confidence interval, 1.51–6.45; P =0.002). Conclusions—: High implantation inside failed bioprosthetic valves is a strong independent correlate of lower postprocedural gradients in both self- and balloon-expandable transcatheter valves. These clinical evaluations support specific implantation targets to optimize hemodynamics after ViV.