This meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter
aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-surgical aortic valve replacement
(Redo-SAVR) in failed bioprosthetic aortic valves. We conducted a comprehensive review of previous publications of all relevant studies
through August 2020. Twelve observational studies were included with a total of 8,430
patients, and a median-weighted follow-up period of 1.74 years. A pooled analysis
of the data showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.15; 95%
CI 0.93 to 1.43; p = 0.21), cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent
pacemaker implantation, and the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage between
ViV-TAVI and Redo-SAVR groups. The rate of major bleeding (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to
0.83, p = 0.02), procedural mortality (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, p = 0.04), 30-day
mortality (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.74, p <0.0001), and the rate of stroke (OR 0.65;
95% CI 0.52 to 0.81, p = 0.0001) were significantly lower in the ViV- TAVI arm when
compared with Redo-SAVR arm. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was significantly
higher post-implantation in the ViV-TAVI group when compared with the Redo-SAVR arm
(Mean difference 3.92; 95% CI 1.97 to 5.88, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, compared with
Redo-SAVR, ViV-TAVI is associated with a similar risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular
mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and the rate of
moderate to severe paravalvular leakage. However, the rate of major bleeding, stroke,
procedural mortality and 30-day mortality were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVI
group when compared with Redo-SAVR.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of CardiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic failure:insights from the society of thoracic surgeons national database.Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 110: 1637-1652https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.08.023
- Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: A benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures.Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; : 1298-1304
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry.Circulation. 2012; 126: 2335-2344
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2014; 312: 162-170
- Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve aortic valve replacement as an alternative to surgical re-replacement.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76: 489-499
- Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Vs surgical replacement of failing stented aortic biological valves.Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 108: 424-430https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.03.084
- Valve-in-Valve transcatheter implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement.Am J Cardiol. 2020; 125: 1378-1384https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.02.005
- Treatment of failed aortic bioprostheses: an evaluation of conventional redo surgery and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation.Int J Cardiol. 2020; 300: 80-86https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.09.039
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis.EuroIntervention. 2017; 13: 1149-1156
- Redo procedures for degenerated stentless aortic xenografts and the role of valve-in-valve transcatheter techniques.Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg. 2017; 51: 653-659
- Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting.J Thorac Dis. 2015; 7: 1494-1500
- Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 24: 63-70
- Reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves.Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102: 1452-1458https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.086
- Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes.Eur Heart J. 2020; 41: 2747-2755
- Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation and sutureless aortic valve replacement: two strategies for one goal in redo patients.Minerva Cardioangiol. 2016; 64: 581-585
- Femoral transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation as alternative strategy for failed aortic bioprostheses: a single-centre experience with long-term follow-up.Int J Cardiol. 2020; 306: 25-34
- Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement.N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1847-1857
- Delayed coronary obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71: 1513-1524
- Coronary obstruction in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation preprocedural evaluation, device selection, protection, and treatment.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8e002079
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure: the valve-in-valve procedure.Circulation. 2013; 127: 2542-2550
- 1-Year results in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with failed surgical bioprostheses.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10: 1034-1044
- Novel strategies in aortic valve-in-valve therapy including bioprosthetic valve fracture and BASILICA.EuroIntervention. 2018; 14: AB74-AB82
- Valve-in-valve hemodynamics of 20-mm transcatheter aortic valves in small bioprostheses.Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92: 548-555
- Long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 537-545
- Clinical outcomes of the self-expandable Evolut R valve versus the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation; a meta-analysis and systematic review.Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2020; (S1553-8389:30625–4)
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: January 30, 2021
Received in revised form:
January 5,
2021
Received:
November 30,
2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
