remains conventional surgical reoperation. High-risk patients, however, may not tolerate reoperations. The introduction of catheter-based valve implantation has produced a new option of a valve-in-valve approach to failing bioprostheses. 2 Without the anatomic difficulties associated with transcutaneous valve implantation in a native mitral annulus or a preexisting mitral annuloplasty ring, performance of the MVinV procedure is relatively straightforward because of the circular bioprosthesis sewing ring, which serves as an excellent landing zone for the transcutaneous valve stent.Cheung and colleagues 3 reported a small series of 11 patients (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 16%) with symptomatic mitral prosthetic valve dysfunction who underwent transapical MVinV. The success rate was 100%, with no 30-day mortality. Nine patients were alive and in New York Heart Association class I or II at a median follow-up of 357 days. 3 Similarly, Seiffert and associates 4 reported on 6 high-risk patients (EuroSCORE of 33%) who underwent MVinV. Implantation was successful in all patients, with reduction of the transvalvular gradients and median regurgitation from grade 3 to 0. All patients in these studies received a balloon-expandable bovine SAPIEN valve. Despite the fact that Seiffert and associates 4 reported postoperative complications in 3 patients, this approach remains acceptable for high-risk patients with a failed bioprosthetic MV. As this case report demonstrates, the transapical method allows access to the AV and MV, even during the same procedure for patients at very high risk requiring reoperative double valve replacement. 5 The unique aspect of this case report is that the patient had undergone a previous TA-AVI procedure. Despite the fact that the apex had previously been used for a TA-AVI operation, we did not have any difficulties with mobilization or cannulation of the apex during the MVinV procedure.With a growing need for reoperative MV replacement for bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration, transcatheter MVinV placement has become as an alternate option. Although the evidence for this approach is limited to a few case reports and small case series, it appears to be a feasible, safe, and promising approach in a select patient population. References 1. Holzhey DM, Schuler G, Mohr FW, Mukherjee C. Transapical double valve implantation plus percutaneous revascularization as a bailout for a high-risk patient. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144:508-10. 2. N uñez-Gil IJ, Gonçalves A, Rodr ıguez E, Cobiella J, Marcos-Alberca P, Maroto L, et al. Transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation: a novel approach guided by three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2011;12:335-7. 3. Cheung AW, Gurvitch R, Ye J, Wood D, Lichtenstein SV, Thompson C, et al. Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantations for a failed bioprosthesis: a case series. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:711-5. 4. Seiffert M, Conradi L, Baldus S, Schirmer J, Knap M, Blankenberg S, et a...