Advertisement

Meta-Analysis of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo-surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

Published:January 30, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.01.028
      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 access
      One-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 Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Kalra A
        • Raza S
        • Hussain M
        • Shorbaji K
        • Delozier S
        • Deo SV.
        • Khera S
        • Kleiman NS
        • Reardon MJ
        • Kolte D
        • Gupta T
        • Mustafa R
        • Bhatt DL
        • Sabik JF.
        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
        • Kaneko T
        • Vassileva CM
        • Englum B
        • Kim S
        • Yammine M
        • Brennan M
        • Suri RM
        • Thourani VH
        • Jacobs JP
        • Aranki S.
        Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: A benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; : 1298-1304
        • Dvir D
        • Webb J
        • Brecker S
        • Bleiziffer S
        • Hildick-Smith D
        • Colombo A
        • Descoutures F
        • Hengstenberg C
        • Moat NE
        • Bekeredjian R
        • Napodano M
        • Testa L
        • Lefevre T
        • Guetta V
        • Nissen H
        • Hernández JM
        • Roy D
        • Teles RC
        • Segev A
        • Dumonteil N
        • Fiorina C
        • Gotzmann M
        • Tchetche D
        • Abdel-Wahab M
        • Marco F De
        • Baumbach A
        • Laborde JC
        • Kornowski R
        Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry.
        Circulation. 2012; 126: 2335-2344
        • Dvir D
        • Webb JG
        • Bleiziffer S
        • Pasic M
        • Waksman R
        • Kodali S
        • Barbanti M
        • Latib A
        • Schaefer U
        • Rodés-Cabau J
        • Treede H
        • Piazza N
        • Hildick-Smith D
        • Himbert D
        • Walther T
        • Hengstenberg C
        • Nissen H
        • Bekeredjian R
        • Presbitero P
        • Ferrari E
        • Segev A
        • Weger A De
        • Windecker S
        • Moat NE
        • Napodano M
        • Wilbring M
        • Cerillo AG
        • Brecker S
        • Tchetche D
        • Lefèvre T
        • Marco
        • De F
        • Fiorina C
        • Petronio AS
        • Teles RC
        • Testa L
        • Laborde JC
        • Leon MB
        • Kornowski R
        Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.
        JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2014; 312: 162-170
        • Deharo P
        • Bisson A
        • Herbert J
        • Lacour T
        • Saint Etienne C
        • Porto A
        • Theron A
        • Collart F
        • Bourguignon T
        • Cuisset T
        • Fauchier L
        Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve aortic valve replacement as an alternative to surgical re-replacement.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76: 489-499
        • Sedeek AF
        • Greason KL
        • Sandhu GS
        • Dearani JA
        • Holmes DR
        • Schaff HV
        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
        • Malik AH
        • Yandrapalli S
        • Zaid S
        • Shetty SS
        • Aronow WS
        • Ahmad H
        • Tang GHL
        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
        • Woitek FJ
        • Stachel G
        • Kiefer P
        • Haussig S
        • Leontyev S
        • Schlotter F
        • Mende M
        • Hommel J
        • Crusius L
        • Spindler A
        • Mohr FW
        • Schuler G
        • Thiele H
        • Borger MA
        • Linke A
        • Holzhey D
        • Mangner N
        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
        • Spaziano M
        • Mylotte D
        • Thériault-Lauzier P
        • Backer O De
        • Søndergaard L
        • Bosmans J
        • Debry N
        • Modine T
        • Barbanti M
        • Tamburino C
        • Sinning JM
        • Grube E
        • Nickenig G
        • Mellert F
        • Bleiziffer S
        • Lange R
        • Varennes B De
        • Lachapelle K
        • Martucci G
        • Piazza N
        Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis.
        EuroIntervention. 2017; 13: 1149-1156
        • Grubitzsch H
        • Zobel S
        • Christ T
        • Holinski S
        • Stangl K
        • Treskatsch S
        • Falk V
        • Laule M
        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
        • Erlebach M
        • Wottke M
        • Deutsch MA
        • Krane M
        • Piazza N
        • Lange R
        • Bleiziffer S
        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
        • Silaschi M
        • Wendler O
        • Seiffert M
        • Castro L
        • Lubos E
        • Schirmer J
        • Blankenberg S
        • Reichenspurner H
        • Schäfer U
        • Treede H
        • MacCarthy P
        • Conradi L
        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
        • Ejiofor JI
        • Yammine M
        • Harloff MT
        • McGurk S
        • Muehlschlegel JD
        • Shekar PS
        • Cohn LH
        • Shah P
        • Kaneko T
        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
        • Hirji SA
        • Percy ED
        • Zogg CK
        • Malarczyk A
        • Harloff MT
        • Yazdchi F
        • Kaneko T
        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
        • Santarpino G
        • Pietsch LE
        • Jessl J
        • Pfeiffer S
        • Pollari F
        • Pauschinger M
        • Fischlein T.
        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
        • Stankowski T
        • Aboul-Hassan SS
        • Seifi Zinab F
        • Herwig V
        • Stępiński P
        • Grimmig O
        • Just S
        • Harnath A
        • Muehle A
        • Fritzsche D
        • Perek B
        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
        • Goldstone AB
        • Chiu P
        • Baiocchi M
        • Lingala B
        • Patrick WL
        • Fischbein MP
        • Woo YJ
        Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1847-1857
        • Jabbour RJ
        • Tanaka A
        • Finkelstein A
        • Mack M
        • Tamburino C
        • Mieghem N Van
        • Backer O de
        • Testa L
        • Gatto P
        • Purita P
        • Rahhab Z
        • Veulemans V
        • Stundl A
        • Barbanti M
        • Nerla R
        • Sinning JM
        • Dvir D
        • Tarantini G
        • Szerlip M
        • Scholtz W
        • Scholtz S
        • Tchetche D
        • Castriota F
        • Butter C
        • Søndergaard L
        • Abdel-Wahab M
        • Sievert H
        • Alfieri O
        • Webb J
        • Rodés-Cabau J
        • Colombo A
        • Latib A
        Delayed coronary obstruction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71: 1513-1524
        • Dvir D
        • Leipsic J
        • Blanke P
        • Ribeiro HB
        • Kornowski R
        • Pichard A
        • Rodés-Cabau J
        • Wood DA
        • Stub D
        • Ben-Dor I
        • Maluenda G
        • Makkar RR
        • Webb JG.
        Coronary obstruction in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation preprocedural evaluation, device selection, protection, and treatment.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8e002079
        • Webb JG
        • Dvir D
        Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure: the valve-in-valve procedure.
        Circulation. 2013; 127: 2542-2550
        • Deeb GM
        • Chetcuti SJ
        • Reardon MJ
        • Patel HJ
        • Grossman PM
        • Schreiber T
        • Forrest JK
        • Bajwa TK
        • O'Hair DP
        • Petrossian G
        • Robinson N
        • Katz S
        • Hartman A
        • Dauerman HL
        • Schmoker J
        • Khabbaz K
        • Watson DR
        • Yakubov SJ
        • Oh JK
        • Li S
        • Kleiman NS
        • Adams DH
        • Popma JJ
        1-Year results in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with failed surgical bioprostheses.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10: 1034-1044
        • Dvir D
        • Khan J
        • Kornowski R
        • Komatsu I
        • Chatriwalla A
        • Mackenson GB
        • Simonato M
        • Ribeiro H
        • Wood D
        • Leipsic J
        • Webb J
        • Mylotte D
        Novel strategies in aortic valve-in-valve therapy including bioprosthetic valve fracture and BASILICA.
        EuroIntervention. 2018; 14: AB74-AB82
        • Azadani AN
        • Jaussaud N
        • Ge L
        • Chitsaz S
        • Chuter TAM
        • Tseng EE
        Valve-in-valve hemodynamics of 20-mm transcatheter aortic valves in small bioprostheses.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92: 548-555
        • Blackman DJ
        • Saraf S
        • MacCarthy PA
        • Myat A
        • Anderson SG
        • Malkin CJ
        • Cunnington MS
        • Somers K
        • Brennan P
        • Manoharan G
        • Parker J
        • Aldalati O
        • Brecker SJ
        • Dowling C
        • Hoole SP
        • Dorman S
        • Mullen M
        • Kennon S
        • Jerrum M
        • Chandrala P
        • Roberts DH
        • Tay J
        • Doshi SN
        • Ludman PF
        • Fairbairn TA
        • Crowe J
        • Levy RD
        • Banning AP
        • Ruparelia N
        • Spence MS
        • Hildick-Smith D
        Long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 537-545
        • Al-abcha A
        • Saleh Y
        • Charles L
        • Prasad R
        • Baloch ZQ
        • Hasan MA
        • Abela GS
        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)