TAV-in-SAV implantation is a safe and feasible treatment for high-risk patients with failing aortic bioprosthetic valves and should be considered as part of the armamentarium in the treatment of aortic bioprosthetic valve failure.

Patients who require tricuspid valve surgery constitute a high-risk group. Tricuspid valve repair is associated with better perioperative and long-term outcome than valve replacement. However, patients undergoing replacement showed a significant higher incidence of risk factors for operative mortality. The incidence of re-operation is low with no significant difference when the tricuspid valve has been repaired or replaced. When valve replacement is necessary we recommend the use of a biological prosthesis considering the poor long-term survival.

With an aging population, improvement in life expectancy, and significant increase in the use of bioprosthetic valves, structural valve deterioration will become more and more prevalent. The operative mortality for an elective redo aortic valve surgery is reported to range from 2% to 7%, but this percentage can increase to more than 30% in high-risk and nonelective patients. Because transcatheter aortic valve (TAV)-in-surgical aortic valve (SAV) implantation represents a minimally invasive alternative to conventional redo surgery, it may prove to be safer and just as effective as redo surgery. Of course, prospective comparisons with a large number of patients and long-term follow-up are required to confirm these potential advantages. It is axiomatic that knowledge of the basic construction and dimensions, radiographic identification, and potential failure modes of SAV bioprostheses is fundamental in understanding key principles involved in TAV-in-SAV implantation. The goals of this paper are: 1) to review the classification, physical characteristics, and potential failure modes of surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves; and 2) to discuss patient selection and procedural techniques relevant to TAV-in-SAV implantation.

The incidence of trivial or mild AI after the ASO is considerable and a progression over time is evident. However, severe AI and the need for AVR are rare. Patients with VSD or Taussig-Bing anomaly, and those with left ventricular outflow tract obstruction exhibit a higher risk of developing significant aortic insufficiency. Particularly patients who have developed an AI at 1 year after the ASO need to be under close observation.