Advertisement

Meta-Analysis Comparing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement in Degenerated Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve

Open AccessPublished:December 13, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.11.043
      Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR) are 2 treatment strategies for patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve dysfunction. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR in degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves. We used a random-effects model to calculate odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality, stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, arrhythmias, permanent pacemaker insertion, and hospital length of stay (LOS). A total of 6 observational studies with 707 subjects were included. The median follow-up was 2.7 years. Despite their older age and greater co-morbidity burden, patients who underwent ViV-TMVR had a similar in-hospital mortality (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.23, p = 0.14), 30-day mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.17, p = 0.15), 1-year mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49, p = 0.89), and 2-year mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.13, p = 0.60) compared with redo-SMVR. ViV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower periprocedural complications, including stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, arrhythmias, and permanent pacemaker insertion, and shorter hospital LOS than redo-SMVR. In conclusion, ViV-TMVR was associated with better outcomes than redo-SMVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, including lower complication rates and shorter hospital LOS, with no significant difference in mortality rates. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to mitigate biases and confirm our findings.

      Graphical Abstract

      The volume of mitral valve (MV) surgeries in the United States has steadily increased, exceeding 30,000 per year in 2016, with approximately 1/3 of them being MV replacement (MVR).
      • Gammie JS
      • Chikwe J
      • Badhwar V
      • Thibault DP
      • Vemulapalli S
      • Thourani VH
      • Gillinov M
      • Adams DH
      • Rankin JS
      • Ghoreishi M
      • Wang A
      • Ailawadi G
      • Jacobs JP
      • Suri RM
      • Bolling SF
      • Foster NW
      • Quinn RW.
      Isolated mitral valve surgery: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database analysis.
      Bioprosthetic valves have a lower risk of thrombotic complications than mechanical valves and do not require anticoagulation; however, they degenerate over time, requiring reintervention.
      • Jones JM
      • O'Kane H
      • Gladstone DJ
      • Sarsam MA
      • Campalani G
      • MacGowan SW
      • Cleland J
      • Cran GW
      Repeat heart valve surgery: risk factors for operative mortality.
      The optimal strategy for replacing degenerated bioprosthetic MVs continues to evolve with randomized comparisons of transcatheter and surgical approaches lacking. Although conventional redo surgical MVR (redo-SMVR) has been the gold standard strategy for degenerated bioprotheses, redo-SMVR is associated with significant resource utilization, nonnegligible rates of periprocedural complications, and mortality rates approaching 11%.
      • Potter DD
      • Sundt 3rd, TM
      • Zehr KJ
      • Dearani JA
      • Daly RC
      • Mullany CJ
      • McGregor CG
      • Puga FJ
      • Schaff HV
      • Orszulak TA
      Risk of repeat mitral valve replacement for failed mitral valve prostheses.
      • Mehaffey HJ
      • Hawkins RB
      • Schubert S
      • Fonner C
      • Yarboro LT
      • Quader M
      • Speir A
      • Rich J
      • Kron IL
      • Ailawadi G.
      Contemporary outcomes in reoperative mitral valve surgery.
      • Onorati F
      • Mariscalco G
      • Reichart D
      • Perrotti A
      • Gatti G
      • De Feo M
      • Rubino A
      • Santarpino G
      • Biancari F
      • Detter C
      • Santini F
      • Faggian G.
      Hospital Outcome and Risk Indices of Mortality after redo-mitral valve surgery in Potential Candidates for Transcatheter Procedures: results from a European Registry.
      • Akins CW
      • Buckley MJ
      • Daggett WM
      • Hilgenberg AD
      • Vlahakes GJ
      • Torchiana DF
      • Madsen JC.
      Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses.
      To date, data comparing the safety and efficacy of valve-in-valve transcatheter MVR (ViV-TMVR) versus redo-SMVR remain limited to small retrospective studies.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      • Zia Khan M
      • Zahid S
      • Khan MU
      • Kichloo A
      • Jamal S
      • Mannan Khan Minhas A
      • Ullah W
      • Sattar Y
      • Balla S
      Redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve in valve from the national inpatient sample.
      • Gill J
      • Zahra F
      • Retzer E.
      In-hospital outcomes and predictors of mortality for redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement.
      • Osman M
      • Al-Hijji MA
      • Kawsara A
      • Patel B
      • Alkhouli M.
      Comparative outcomes of mitral valve in valve implantation versus redo mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprotheses.
      Therefore, the present study aimed to perform a comprehensive contemporary meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR among patients with degenerated bioprosthetic MVs from available studies.

      Methods

      The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines
      • Page MJ
      • McKenzie JE
      • Bossuyt PM
      • Boutron I
      • Hoffmann TC
      • Mulrow CD
      • Shamseer L
      • Tetzlaff JM
      • Akl EA
      • Brennan SE
      • Chou R
      • Glanville J
      • Grimshaw JM
      • Hróbjartsson A
      • Lalu MM
      • Li T
      • Loder EW
      • Mayo-Wilson E
      • McDonald S
      • McGuinness LA
      • Stewart LA
      • Thomas J
      • Tricco AC
      • Welch VA
      • Whiting P
      • Moher D.
      The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
      and were registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022354049). A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases by 2 independent authors (MI and MAA) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing ViV-TMVR with redo-SMVR in patients with bioprosthetic MV disease from the inception of each database to September 15, 2022. To increase the sensitivity of our search, we combined variants of the words “valve-in-valve,” “transcatheter,” “redo surgical,” “failed prosthesis,” and “mitral valve” as either keywords or Medical Subject Headings terms. No language, sample size, publication date, or publication status restrictions were placed on the search. The search strategy used in each database is summarized in Supplementary Table 1. The references of the retrieved studies were also manually checked for relevant studies.
      After removing duplicate publications, all citations were downloaded and screened by 2 authors (MI and MAA) independently based on titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant studies were subjected to full-text review to assess further for eligibility. Discrepancies in study selection were discussed and resolved with another author (AMG). Eligible studies had to satisfy the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies comparing ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR for bioprosthetic MV degeneration, and (2) the availability of clinical outcomes data at 1 or more time points. We excluded studies that lacked clinical outcomes data, and abstracts, case reports, review articles, editorials, and letters.
      After relevant articles were identified, 2 authors (MI and MAA) independently extracted data (baseline characteristics, definitions of outcomes, and numbers of events) into a spreadsheet for analysis. From studies including both propensity-matched and unmatched analyses, we preferentially included data from the propensity-matched analyses. The same investigators (MI and MAA) independently and systematically assessed the studies’ methodologic quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Publication bias for each outcome was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots when data were available from at least 3 studies.
      The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), arrhythmias, permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (PPMI), hospital length of stay (LOS), and mean MV gradient. Bleeding complications were defined as major or life-threatening bleeding or bleeding requiring blood transfusion. Arrhythmias were defined as new-onset atrial fibrillation or complete heart block. The mean MV gradients were measured at discharge or during follow-up.
      For dichotomous outcomes, odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from the available data in the included studies, and the study-specific ORs were combined using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, with the estimate of heterogeneity taken from the Mantel–Haenszel model. For continuous outcomes, standard mean differences with 95% CIs were calculated from the available data in the included studies. A 2-tailed α value of p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The “test for overall effect” was reported as a z value corroborating the inference from the 95% CI. The Higgins I-squared (I2) statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity among the included studies; a value of 0% indicates no observed heterogeneity, and larger values indicate increasing heterogeneity. I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% have been assigned adjectives of low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014).

      Results

      The initial database search identified a total of 842 studies, from which 88 duplicates and 719 studies not meeting inclusion criteria were removed by screening titles and abstracts. The remaining 35 studies were subject to full-text review, leading to further exclusion of 29 studies. Finally, 6 studies were selected for quantitative analysis.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      We excluded 2 Nationwide Inpatient Sample
      • Zia Khan M
      • Zahid S
      • Khan MU
      • Kichloo A
      • Jamal S
      • Mannan Khan Minhas A
      • Ullah W
      • Sattar Y
      • Balla S
      Redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve in valve from the national inpatient sample.
      ,
      • Gill J
      • Zahra F
      • Retzer E.
      In-hospital outcomes and predictors of mortality for redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement.
      and 1 National Readmission Database
      • Osman M
      • Al-Hijji MA
      • Kawsara A
      • Patel B
      • Alkhouli M.
      Comparative outcomes of mitral valve in valve implantation versus redo mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprotheses.
      studies to avoid any overlap with the included more recent studies from the United States, reflecting contemporary practice.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      ,
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      Figure 1 displays the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram for study search and selection.
      Figure 1
      Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram showing the selection process of the included studies. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.
      The studies’ methodologic quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies (Supplementary Table 2). With respect to clinical outcomes, there was no heterogeneity for in-hospital mortality (I2 = 0%, p = 0.92), 30-day mortality (I2 = 0%, p = 0.41), 1-year mortality (I2 = 0%, p = 0.95), 2-year mortality (I2 = 0%, p = 0.76), stroke (I2 = 0%, p = 0.95), bleeding complications (I2 = 0%, p = 0.57), AKI (I2 = 0%, p = 0.67), and PPMI (I2 = 0%, p = 0.70). Low heterogeneity was present for hospital LOS (I2 = 27%, p = 0.25) and mean MV gradient (I2 = 5%, p = 0.37), and high heterogeneity was present for arrhythmias (I2 = 71%, p = 0.02). Overall, the heterogeneity was low, and there was no to minimal evidence of publication bias on visual inspection of the funnel plots (Supplementary Figure 1).
      A total of 6 observational studies were included in the primary analysis (Table 1).
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      These studies comprised 707 patients with bioprosthetic MV degeneration, of whom 338 underwent ViV-TMVR and 369 underwent redo-SMVR. The median follow-up duration was approximately 2.7 years. All patients in the ViV-TMVR group underwent valve-in-valve TMVR for failed MV bioprosthesis, except for 11 of 86 patients (12%) in the study of Simard et al,
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      7 of 79 patients (8%) in the study of Szlapka et al,

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      and 16 of 41 patients (39%) in the study of Zubarevich et al
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      who underwent valve-in-ring TMVR for failed MV annuloplasty rings. Of the 6 included studies, 2 studies used the transapical (TA) approach exclusively,
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      ,
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      1 study used the transseptal (TS) approach except in 2 patients,
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      and 3 studies used either the TA or TS approach.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      ,
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      ,

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      Given the retrospective observational nature of these studies, many of the authors performed propensity matching based on demographic and clinical characteristics to reduce selection bias and potential confounding.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      ,
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      ,

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      Despite some propensity matching, patients in the ViV-TMVR group were older (aged 75 vs 66 years), with more co-morbidities and higher EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality scores than the redo-SMVR group (Table 2).
      Table 1Study characteristics of included investigations comparing ViV-TMVR versus. redo-SMVR in patients with degenerative bioprosthetic mitral valve
      Study, yearStudy DesignCountryStudy PeriodNumber of Patients (n)ViV-TMVR access siteType of prosthesis in ViV-TMVRType of prosthesis in redo-SMVRMode of degenerationMedian follow-up
      TotalViV- TMVRRedo- SMVRViV-TMVRRedo-SMVRViV- TMVRRedo- SMVR
      Murzi et al, 2017
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      Retrospective, observational, propensity score-matchedItaly2005-2015612140All transapical 21 (100%)Bioprosthesis with SAPIEN XT (18 [86%]) or

      SAPIEN 3 (3 [14%])
      ---15 ± 17 months36 ± 29 months
      Kamioka et al, 2018
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      Retrospective, observationalUSA2007-20171216259Transseptal: 48 (77%)

      Transapical: 14 (23%)
      Bioprosthesis with SAPIEN (7 [11%]), SAPIEN XT (14 [23%]), or

      SAPIEN 3 (41 [66%])
      Mechanical prostheses: St. Jude mechanical (3 [5%]), On-X (9 [15%])

      Bioprosthesis:

      CEP/CEP Magna (16 [27%]), Medtronic Mosaic/Hancock (20 [34%]), St. Jude Epic (11 [19%])
      Stenosis:

      44 (71%)

      Regurgitation:

      31 (50%)

      Paravalvular leakage:

      5 (8%)
      Stenosis:

      29 (49%)

      Regurgitation:

      33 (56%)

      Paravalvular leakage:

      5 (9%)
      286 (IQR 112–494) days930 (IQR 152–1,596) days
      Simonetto et al, 2020
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      Retrospective, observationalItaly2012-2019784929Transseptal: 27 (55%)

      Transapical: 22 (45%)
      --Stenosis:

      8 (16%)

      Regurgitation:

      22 (45%)

      Combined:

      19 (39%)
      Stenosis:

      9 (31%)

      Regurgitation:

      13 (45%)

      Combined:

      7 (24%)
      TS-ViV-TMVR: 357 days

      TA-ViV-TMVR: 365 days
      365 days
      Zubarevich et al, 2021
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      Retrospective, observationalGermany2012-2020744133All transapical 41 (100%)Bioprosthesis with SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3Mechanical prostheses:

      7 (21%)

      Bioprosthesis:

      26 (79%)
      Stenosis:

      20 (49%)

      Regurgitation:

      39 (95%)
      Stenosis:

      14 (42%)

      Regurgitation:

      29 (88%)
      729 (IQR 511–947) days1163 (IQR 929–1,734) days
      Simard et al, 2022
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      Retrospective, observational, propensity score-matchedUSA2014-202021586129Transseptal: 84 (98%)

      Transapical: 2 (2%)
      Bioprosthesis with balloon expandable SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, SAPIEN 3, or SAPIEN

      3 Ultra THVs
      Mechanical prostheses or bioprosthesisStenosis:

      33 (38%)

      Regurgitation:

      53 (62%)
      Stenosis:

      46 (36%)

      Regurgitation:

      83 (64%)
      1.4 (IQR 0.5–3.0) years2.3 (IQR 0.2–4.6) years
      Szlapka et al, 2022

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      Retrospective, observational, propensity score-matchedGermany2014-20191587979Transseptal: 6 (8%)

      Transapical: 73 (92%)
      Edwards Lifesciences SAPIEN XT (28 [35%]), SAPIEN (6 [8%]), or SAPIEN 3 (45 [57%])-Stenosis: 62 (79%)Stenosis: 27 (34%)4.5 years4.5 years
      Data are presented as n (%), median±standard deviation, or median (IQR).
      IQR = interquartile range; SMVR = surgical mitral valve replacement; TA = transapical; TS = transseptal; ViV-TMVR = valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement.
      - No information available.
      Table 2Baseline clinical characteristics in ViV-TMVR versus. redo-SMVR group
      Murzi et al, 2017
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      Kamioka et al, 2018
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      Simonetto et al, 2020
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      Zubarevich et al, 2021
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      Simard et al, 2022
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      Szlapka et al, 2022

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      ViV-TMVR (n = 21)Redo-SMVR (n = 40)ViV-TMVR (n = 62)Redo-SMVR (n = 59)ViV-TMVR (n = 49)Redo-SMVR (n = 29)ViV-TMVR (n = 41)Redo-SMVR (n = 33)ViV-TMVR (n = 86)Redo-SMVR (n = 129)ViV-TMVR (n = 79)Redo-SMVR (n = 79)
      Age (years)776775647868746475657572
      Male8 (38%)17 (44%)24 (39%)23 (39%)19 (39%)16 (55%)22 (54%)11 (33%)32 (37%)48 (37%)32 (41%)33 (42%)
      EuroSCORE (%)39 ± 1923 ± 10--11 ± 56 ± 342 ± 2133 ± 26--1615
      STS PROM (%)--13 ± 89 ± 109 ± 74 ± 312 ± 1110 ± 14----
      DM5 (24%)4 (10%)15 (24%)7 (12%)9 (18%)4 (15%)14 (34%)4 (12%)15 (17%)24 (19%)--
      Dyslipidemia--50 (81%)38 (64%)26 (53%)10 (37%)------
      Systemic HTN--53 (86%)47 (80%)37 (76%)20 (74%)41 (100%)31 (94%)65 (76%)93 (72%)--
      Pulmonary HTN19 (90%)14 (34%)----41 (100%)22 (67%)--52 (66%)41 (52%)
      CAD--33 (53%)18 (31%)--29 (71%)7 (21%)----
      Prior MI--14 (23%)12 (20%)6 (12%)0 (0%)--13 (15%)14 (11%)--
      Prior PCI--12 (19%)5 (9%)5 (10%)1 (4%)13 (32%)2 (6%)----
      Prior CABG3 (14%)7 (17%)29 (47%)15 (25%)18 (37%)2 (7%)25 (61%)5 (15%)----
      PAD2 (10%)6 (15%)4 (7%)2 (3%)9 (18%)1 (4%)15 (37%)1 (3%)11 (13%)9 (7%)--
      NYHA ≥ III18 (86%)29 (71%)19 (31%)19 (32%)42 (86%)16 (55%)41 (100%)24 (72.7%)85 (99%)89 (69%)--
      Ejection fraction (%)50 ± 753 ± 755 ± 1256 ± 1257 ± 1060 ± 746 ± 1352 ± 959 ± 1159 ± 11--
      AF9 (43%)4 (10%)47 (76%)16 (27%)37 (76%)19 (68%)28 (68%)20 (61%)--54 (68%)40 (51%)
      Existing PPM----15 (31%)4 (14%)11 (27%)3 (9%)----
      CKD6 (19%)5 (12%)----28 (68%)16 (49%)----
      Dialysis--4 (7%)5 (9%)0 (0%)0 (0%)4 (10%)3 (9%)----
      Chronic lung disease3 (14%)5 (12%)21 (34%)8 (14%)4 (8%)3 (11%)17 (42%)5 (15%)30 (35%)26 (20%)--
      Liver disease--4 (7%)8 (14%)3 (6%)1 (4%)------
      Prior stroke2 (10%)4 (10%)22 (36%)17 (29%)3 (6%)2 (7%)4 (10%)8 (24%)9 (11%)27 (21%)--
      Data are presented as n (%) or mean±standard deviation.
      AF = atrial fibrillation; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CAD = coronary artery disease; CKD = chronic kidney disease; DM = diabetes mellitus; HTN = hypertension; MI = myocardial infarction; NYHA = New York Heart Association; PAD = peripheral arterial disease; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; PPM = permanent pacemaker; SMVR = surgical mitral valve replacement; STS PROM = Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality; ViV-TMVR = valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement.
      - No information available.
      In patients with bioprosthetic MV degeneration, ViV-TMVR was associated with similar in-hospital mortality (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.23, p = 0.14; Figure 2), 30-day mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.17, p = 0.15; Figure 2), 1-year mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49, p = 0.89; Figure 2), and 2-year mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.13, p = 0.60; Figure 2) compared with redo-SMVR. The risks of stroke (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.88, p = 0.03; Figure 3), bleeding (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39, p <0.00001; Figure 3), AKI (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.84, p = 0.01; Figure 3), arrhythmias (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.64, p = 0.009; Figure 3), and PPMI (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60, p = 0.005; Figure 4) were significantly lower, and the hospital LOS (standard mean difference −0.64; 95% CI −0.91 to −0.36; p <0.00001, Figure 4) was shorter with ViV-TMVR. ViV-TMVR was associated with higher mean MV gradients (standard mean difference 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48, p = 0.04; Figure 4).
      Figure 2
      Figure 2Forest plot for the comparison of ViV-TMVR (left) and redo-SMVR (right) for degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves. (A) In-hospital mortality; (B) 30-day mortality; (C) 1-year mortality; (D) 2-year mortality. Odd ratios for individual studies are indicated by squares and 95% CIs by horizontal lines. Overall totals and their 95% CIs are represented by diamonds, in which the diamond's center denotes the point estimate, and the width denotes the 95% CI. The size of the squares and the diamonds are proportional to the statistical information conveyed. M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.
      Figure 3
      Figure 3Forest plot for the comparison of ViV-TMVR (left) and redo-SMVR (right) for degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves. (A) Stroke; (B) bleeding complications; (C) acute kidney injury; (D) arrhythmias. Odd ratios for individual studies are indicated by squares and 95% CIs by horizontal lines. Overall totals and their 95% CIs are represented by diamonds, in which the diamond's center denotes the point estimate, and the width denotes the 95% CI. The size of the squares and the diamonds are proportional to the statistical information conveyed. M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.
      Figure 4
      Figure 4Forest plot for the comparison of ViV-TMVR (left) and redo-SMVR (right) for degenerated bioprosthetic MVs. (A) Permanent pacemaker; (B) hospital LOS; (C) mean MV gradient. Odd ratios for individual studies are indicated by squares and 95% CIs by horizontal lines. Overall totals and their 95% CIs are represented by diamonds, in which the diamond's center denotes the point estimate, and the width denotes the 95% CI. The size of the squares and the diamonds are proportional to the statistical information conveyed. M-H = Mantel–Haenszel.

      Discussion

      We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR in patients with bioprosthetic MV degeneration. The systematic review captured 6 observational studies.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      The main findings of the meta-analysis include: (1) ViV-TMVR was associated with similar in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality compared with redo-SMVR; (2) the periprocedural complications, including stroke, bleeding, AKI, arrhythmias, and PPMI, were significantly lower, and hospital LOS was significantly shorter with ViV-TMVR; and (3) the mean MV gradient was higher with ViV-TMVR than redo-SMVR.
      In a previous study by Zia Khan et al
      • Zia Khan M
      • Zahid S
      • Khan MU
      • Kichloo A
      • Jamal S
      • Mannan Khan Minhas A
      • Ullah W
      • Sattar Y
      • Balla S
      Redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve in valve from the national inpatient sample.
      involving 790 propensity-matched patients identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (395 ViV-TMVR [50%], 395 redo-SMVR [50%]), patients who underwent ViV-TMVR had significantly lower in-hospital mortality than redo-SMVR (2.5% vs 7.6%, p = 0.001). This could be explained by the safety of TMVR techniques in terms of both planning (valve apps, echocardiography, and multidetector computed tomography) and approach (from TA to TS with rail, then TS alone), leading to a more effective, less invasive procedure with fewer complications.
      • Guerrero M
      • Salinger M
      • Pursnani A
      • Pearson P
      • Lampert M
      • Levisay J
      • Russell H
      • Feldman T.
      Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve: a step by step guide from preprocedural planning to postprocedural care.
      • Hamid NB
      • Khalique OK
      • Monaghan MJ
      • Kodali SK
      • Dvir D
      • Bapat VN
      • Nazif TM
      • Vahl T
      • George I
      • Leon MB
      • Hahn RT.
      Transcatheter valve implantation in failed surgically inserted bioprosthesis: review and practical guide to echocardiographic imaging in valve-in-valve procedures.
      • Urena M
      • Himbert D
      • Brochet E
      • Carrasco JL
      • Iung B
      • Nataf P
      • Vahanian A.
      Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement using balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves: a step-by-step approach.
      • Bapat V.
      Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them.
      Increased adoption of the TS approach over time has been associated with lower 1-year mortality (15.8% vs 21.7%, p = 0.03)
      • Whisenant B
      • Kapadia SR
      • Eleid MF
      • Kodali SK
      • McCabe JM
      • Krishnaswamy A
      • Morse M
      • Smalling RW
      • Reisman M
      • Mack M
      • O'Neill WW
      • Bapat VN
      • Leon MB
      • Rihal CS
      • Makkar RR
      • Guerrero M.
      One-year outcomes of mitral valve-in-valve using the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve.
      and shorter LOS
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      than the TA approach based on recent data. On the contrary, a relatively high incidence of complications during redo surgery, such as stroke, bleeding, AKI, arrhythmias, and PPMI, result in greater mortality in the redo-SMVR group. Indeed, AKI is well known to contribute to morbidity in patients who underwent MV surgery.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      ,
      • Vohra HA
      • Whistance RN
      • Roubelakis A
      • Burton A
      • Barlow CW
      • Tsang GM
      • Livesey SA
      • Ohri SK.
      Outcome after redo-mitral valve replacement in adult patients: a 10-year single-centre experience.
      Furthermore, right-sided valve involvement and right ventricular dysfunction are common in patients with MV disease, and the prognostic impact of significant tricuspid regurgitation in patients after redo valve surgery is also well established.
      • Fukunaga N
      • Okada Y
      • Konishi Y
      • Murashita T
      • Kanemitsu H
      • Koyama T.
      Impact of tricuspid regurgitation after redo valvular surgery on survival in patients with previous mitral valve replacement.
      Simard et al
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      also found a lower 30‐day mortality with ViV-TMVR (2.4% vs 10.2%, p = 0.04), although subsequent survival crossover occurred at 1 to 2 years, leading to higher 5‐year mortality with ViV-TMVR (49.9% vs 34.0%) than redo-SMVR. The lack of persistent favorable outcomes with ViV-TMVR is likely because of 3 factors. First, the ViV-TMVR population were frailer, with significant co-morbidities. Second, the ViV-TMVR group had higher rates of residual MR ≥ moderate,
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      which is a known contributor to worse long-term outcomes and mortality, as demonstrated by Dvir et al.
      • 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
      • de Weger A
      • Windecker S
      • Moat NE
      • Napodano M
      • Wilbring M
      • Cerillo AG
      • Brecker S
      • Tchetche D
      • Lefèvre T
      • De Marco F
      • Fiorina C
      • Petronio AS
      • Teles RC
      • Testa L
      • Laborde JC
      • Leon MB
      • Kornowski R
      Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry Investigators
      Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.
      Third, the low volume of procedures at some institutions, early experience and learning curve issues, and variable approaches for ViV-TMVR may have led to inferior results.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      Despite the older age and greater co-morbidity burden among patients who underwent ViV-TMVR, as evidenced by their significantly higher preoperative risk scores, our meta-analysis revealed similar in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality rates between ViV-TMVR and redo-SMVR for degenerated bioprosthetic MVs. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to better define the mid- and long-term outcomes of ViV-TMVR compared with redo-SMVR.
      Previous individual studies found no significant differences between ViV-TMVR and redo-SMVR in the rates of stroke,
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      ,
      • Simard T
      • Lloyd J
      • Crestanello J
      • Thaden JJ
      • Alkhouli M
      • Guerrero M
      • Rihal CS
      • Eleid MF.
      Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
      ,

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      bleeding,
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      ,
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      AKI,
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      ,
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      ,
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      ,

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      arrhythmias,

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      and PPMI.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      However, on pooled analysis of data from 6 studies, these complications were significantly lower in ViV-TMVR than redo-SMVR, despite the older age and greater co-morbidity burden in the ViV-TMVR group. In the study by Murzi et al,
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      5 of 40 patients (12.5%) who underwent redo-SMVR had postoperative stroke compared with only 1 of 21 patients (4.8%) who underwent ViV-TMVR (p = 0.94).
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      The former rate is similar to the incidence of stroke reported in other series of redo-SMVR.
      • Ricci D
      • Pellegrini C
      • Aiello M
      • Alloni A
      • Cattadori B
      • D'Armini AM
      • Rinaldi M
      • Viganò M
      Port-access surgery as elective approach for mitral valve operation in re-do procedures.
      Potential factors linked to stroke after redo-SMVR include retrograde perfusion through the femoral artery and procedures performed during hypothermic ventricular fibrillation.
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      Our pooled analysis revealed significantly higher postoperative AKI with redo-SMVR than ViV-TMVR. Data from the multicenter Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium demonstrate AKI in around 5% of patients who underwent ViV-TMVR,
      • Yoon SH
      • Whisenant BK
      • Bleiziffer S
      • Delgado V
      • Dhoble A
      • Schofer N
      • Eschenbach L
      • Bansal E
      • Murdoch DJ
      • Ancona M
      • Schmidt T
      • Yzeiraj E
      • Vincent F
      • Niikura H
      • Kim WK
      • Asami M
      • Unbehaun A
      • Hirji S
      • Fujita B
      • Silaschi M
      • Tang GHL
      • Kuwata S
      • Wong SC
      • Frangieh AH
      • Barker CM
      • Davies JE
      • Lauten A
      • Deuschl F
      • Nombela-Franco L
      • Rampat R
      • Nicz PFG
      • Masson JB
      • Wijeysundera HC
      • Sievert H
      • Blackman DJ
      • Gutierrez-Ibanes E
      • Sugiyama D
      • Chakravarty T
      • Hildick-Smith D
      • de Brito Jr, FS
      • Jensen C
      • Jung C
      • Smalling RW
      • Arnold M
      • Redwood S
      • Kasel AM
      • Maisano F
      • Treede H
      • Ensminger SM
      • Kar S
      • Kaneko T
      • Pilgrim T
      • Sorajja P
      • Van Belle E
      • Prendergast BD
      • Bapat V
      • Modine T
      • Schofer J
      • Frerker C
      • Kempfert J
      • Attizzani GF
      • Latib A
      • Schaefer U
      • Webb JG
      • Bax JJ
      • Makkar RR
      Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.
      and the association between the dose of contrast dye used during transcatheter valve procedures and postprocedural AKI was reported by Yamamoto et al.
      • Yamamoto M
      • Hayashida K
      • Mouillet G
      • Chevalier B
      • Meguro K
      • Watanabe Y
      • Dubois-Rande JL
      • Morice MC
      • Lefèvre T
      • Teiger E.
      Renal function-based contrast dosing predicts acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
      However, the amount of contrast dye used in most ViV-TMVR cases was very small to none,
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      and with the current fluoroscopic qualities of previous implanted surgical MV prostheses, the amount of contrast dye may be further reduced or completely avoided.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Zhigalov K
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Thielmann M
      • Rabis M
      • Van den Eynde J
      • Sá MPBO
      • Weissenberger W
      • Kadyraliev B
      • Enginoev S
      • Jánosi RA
      • Lind A
      • Rassaf T
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D.
      Simultaneous transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation and off-pump coronary artery bypass: an effective hybrid approach.
      Furthermore, the postoperative low cardiac output state secondary to high bleeding rates and the presence of multiple co-morbidities in the redo-SMVR group are known risk factors for AKI.
      • Yoon SH
      • Whisenant BK
      • Bleiziffer S
      • Delgado V
      • Dhoble A
      • Schofer N
      • Eschenbach L
      • Bansal E
      • Murdoch DJ
      • Ancona M
      • Schmidt T
      • Yzeiraj E
      • Vincent F
      • Niikura H
      • Kim WK
      • Asami M
      • Unbehaun A
      • Hirji S
      • Fujita B
      • Silaschi M
      • Tang GHL
      • Kuwata S
      • Wong SC
      • Frangieh AH
      • Barker CM
      • Davies JE
      • Lauten A
      • Deuschl F
      • Nombela-Franco L
      • Rampat R
      • Nicz PFG
      • Masson JB
      • Wijeysundera HC
      • Sievert H
      • Blackman DJ
      • Gutierrez-Ibanes E
      • Sugiyama D
      • Chakravarty T
      • Hildick-Smith D
      • de Brito Jr, FS
      • Jensen C
      • Jung C
      • Smalling RW
      • Arnold M
      • Redwood S
      • Kasel AM
      • Maisano F
      • Treede H
      • Ensminger SM
      • Kar S
      • Kaneko T
      • Pilgrim T
      • Sorajja P
      • Van Belle E
      • Prendergast BD
      • Bapat V
      • Modine T
      • Schofer J
      • Frerker C
      • Kempfert J
      • Attizzani GF
      • Latib A
      • Schaefer U
      • Webb JG
      • Bax JJ
      • Makkar RR
      Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.
      Redo-SMVR poses a considerable risk of complete heart block necessitating PPM placement.
      • Vohra HA
      • Whistance RN
      • Roubelakis A
      • Burton A
      • Barlow CW
      • Tsang GM
      • Livesey SA
      • Ohri SK.
      Outcome after redo-mitral valve replacement in adult patients: a 10-year single-centre experience.
      ,
      • Kho J
      • Ioannou A
      • O'Sullivan KE
      • Jones M.
      Permanent pacemaker implantation rates following cardiac surgery in the modern era.
      In contrast, the risk of complete heart block and PPM implantation is inherently small to nonexistent with ViV-TMVR because the transcatheter heart valve is implanted in a preshaped ‘docking’ station of known size.
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      ,
      • Yoon SH
      • Whisenant BK
      • Bleiziffer S
      • Delgado V
      • Dhoble A
      • Schofer N
      • Eschenbach L
      • Bansal E
      • Murdoch DJ
      • Ancona M
      • Schmidt T
      • Yzeiraj E
      • Vincent F
      • Niikura H
      • Kim WK
      • Asami M
      • Unbehaun A
      • Hirji S
      • Fujita B
      • Silaschi M
      • Tang GHL
      • Kuwata S
      • Wong SC
      • Frangieh AH
      • Barker CM
      • Davies JE
      • Lauten A
      • Deuschl F
      • Nombela-Franco L
      • Rampat R
      • Nicz PFG
      • Masson JB
      • Wijeysundera HC
      • Sievert H
      • Blackman DJ
      • Gutierrez-Ibanes E
      • Sugiyama D
      • Chakravarty T
      • Hildick-Smith D
      • de Brito Jr, FS
      • Jensen C
      • Jung C
      • Smalling RW
      • Arnold M
      • Redwood S
      • Kasel AM
      • Maisano F
      • Treede H
      • Ensminger SM
      • Kar S
      • Kaneko T
      • Pilgrim T
      • Sorajja P
      • Van Belle E
      • Prendergast BD
      • Bapat V
      • Modine T
      • Schofer J
      • Frerker C
      • Kempfert J
      • Attizzani GF
      • Latib A
      • Schaefer U
      • Webb JG
      • Bax JJ
      • Makkar RR
      Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.
      Zubarevich et al
      • Zubarevich A
      • Szczechowicz M
      • Arjomandi Rad A
      • Vardanyan R
      • Marx P
      • Lind A
      • Jánosi RA
      • Roosta-Azad M
      • Malik R
      • Kamler M
      • Thielmann M
      • El Gabry M
      • Schmack B
      • Ruhparwar A
      • Weymann A
      • Wendt D
      Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
      found that although not reaching statistical significance, fewer patients in the ViV-TMVR group needed PPMI than redo-SMVR (0 of 41 [0%] vs 3 of 33 [9.1%], p = 0.08). Szlapka et al

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      found significantly lower PPMI rates in patients who underwent ViV-TMVR than redo-SMVR (3 of 79 [3.8%] vs 13 of 79 [16.5%], p = 0.02).

      Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

      Upon pooling of data, we found significantly lower PPMI rates with ViV-TMVR than redo-SMVR. Despite the lower mean age and preoperative risk scores in patients who underwent redo-SMVR, the hospital LOS was significantly higher in the redo-SMVR cohort than in ViV-TMVR, as reported by previous studies,
      • Murzi M
      • Berti S
      • Gasbarri T
      • Trianni G
      • Maffei S
      • Solinas M
      • Dvir D
      • Cerillo AG.
      Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      which ultimately increases the costs in the periprocedural period. This may be related to the higher periprocedural complications in the redo-SMVR group.
      According to the VIVID (Valve-In-Valve International Data) Registry, the largest available source of data on this topic, with a total of 1,079 patients from 90 centers, 857 of whom underwent ViV-TMVR, ViV-TMVR was associated with a mean transprosthetic gradient of 5.6 ± 2.7 mm Hg and 3.1% of patients with residual MR ≥ moderate.
      • Simonato M
      • Whisenant B
      • Ribeiro HB
      • Webb JG
      • Kornowski R
      • Guerrero M
      • Wijeysundera H
      • Søndergaard L
      • De Backer O
      • Villablanca P
      • Rihal C
      • Eleid M
      • Kempfert J
      • Unbehaun A
      • Erlebach M
      • Casselman F
      • Adam M
      • Montorfano M
      • Ancona M
      • Saia F
      • Ubben T
      • Meincke F
      • Napodano M
      • Codner P
      • Schofer J
      • Pelletier M
      • Cheung A
      • Shuvy M
      • Palma JH
      • Gaia DF
      • Duncan A
      • Hildick-Smith D
      • Veulemans V
      • Sinning JM
      • Arbel Y
      • Testa L
      • de Weger A
      • Eltchaninoff H
      • Hemery T
      • Landes U
      • Tchetche D
      • Dumonteil N
      • Rodés-Cabau J
      • Kim WK
      • Spargias K
      • Kourkoveli P
      • Ben-Yehuda O
      • Teles RC
      • Barbanti M
      • Fiorina C
      • Thukkani A
      • Mackensen GB
      • Jones N
      • Presbitero P
      • Petronio AS
      • Allali A
      • Champagnac D
      • Bleiziffer S
      • Rudolph T
      • Iadanza A
      • Salizzoni S
      • Agrifoglio M
      • Nombela-Franco L
      • Bonaros N
      • Kass M
      • Bruschi G
      • Amabile N
      • Chhatriwalla A
      • Messina A
      • Hirji SA
      • Andreas M
      • Welsh R
      • Schoels W
      • Hellig F
      • Windecker S
      • Stortecky S
      • Maisano F
      • Stone GW
      • Dvir D
      Transcatheter mitral valve replacement after surgical repair or replacement: comprehensive midterm evaluation of valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring implantation from the VIVID registry.
      Valve size affects these gradients: in patients who underwent ViV-TMVR, the mean MV gradient and 1-year mortality are lower with larger-sized (26 or 29 mm) transcatheter heart valves than smaller-sized (20 and 23 mm) valves.
      • Whisenant B
      • Kapadia SR
      • Eleid MF
      • Kodali SK
      • McCabe JM
      • Krishnaswamy A
      • Morse M
      • Smalling RW
      • Reisman M
      • Mack M
      • O'Neill WW
      • Bapat VN
      • Leon MB
      • Rihal CS
      • Makkar RR
      • Guerrero M.
      One-year outcomes of mitral valve-in-valve using the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve.
      Kamioka et al
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      found the mean MV gradient to be similar at 30 days between ViV-TMVR and redo-SMVR (7.1 vs 6.5 mm Hg, p = 0.42) and only higher at 1-year with ViV-TMVR (7.2 vs 5.5 mm Hg, p = 0.01).
      • Kamioka N
      • Babaliaros V
      • Morse MA
      • Frisoli T
      • Lerakis S
      • Iturbe JM
      • Binongo J
      • Corrigan F
      • Yousef A
      • Gleason P
      • Wells 4th, JA
      • Caughron H
      • Dong A
      • Rodriguez E
      • Leshnower B
      • O'Neill W
      • Paone G
      • Eng M
      • Guyton R
      • Block PC
      • Greenbaum A.
      Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
      In contrast, Simonetto et al
      • Simonetto F
      • Purita PAM
      • Malerba M
      • Barbierato M
      • Pascotto A
      • Mangino D
      • Zanchettin C
      • Tarantini G
      • Gerosa G
      • D'Onofrio A
      • Cernetti C
      • Favero L
      • Daniotti A
      • Minniti G
      • Caprioglio F
      • Erente G
      • Hinna Danesi T
      • Frigo AC
      • Ronco F
      Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
      found similar valve gradients in the TS-ViV-TMVR and TA-ViV-TMVR compared with redo-SMVR at 30 days (6.7 vs 6.6 vs 5.7 mm Hg, p = 0.07) and 1 year (7.0 vs 6.8 vs 5.7 mm Hg, p = 0.07). Upon pooling of data, our meta-analysis demonstrated higher mean MV gradients with ViV-TMVR, which is a known contributor to worse long-term outcomes.
      • Simonato M
      • Whisenant B
      • Ribeiro HB
      • Webb JG
      • Kornowski R
      • Guerrero M
      • Wijeysundera H
      • Søndergaard L
      • De Backer O
      • Villablanca P
      • Rihal C
      • Eleid M
      • Kempfert J
      • Unbehaun A
      • Erlebach M
      • Casselman F
      • Adam M
      • Montorfano M
      • Ancona M
      • Saia F
      • Ubben T
      • Meincke F
      • Napodano M
      • Codner P
      • Schofer J
      • Pelletier M
      • Cheung A
      • Shuvy M
      • Palma JH
      • Gaia DF
      • Duncan A
      • Hildick-Smith D
      • Veulemans V
      • Sinning JM
      • Arbel Y
      • Testa L
      • de Weger A
      • Eltchaninoff H
      • Hemery T
      • Landes U
      • Tchetche D
      • Dumonteil N
      • Rodés-Cabau J
      • Kim WK
      • Spargias K
      • Kourkoveli P
      • Ben-Yehuda O
      • Teles RC
      • Barbanti M
      • Fiorina C
      • Thukkani A
      • Mackensen GB
      • Jones N
      • Presbitero P
      • Petronio AS
      • Allali A
      • Champagnac D
      • Bleiziffer S
      • Rudolph T
      • Iadanza A
      • Salizzoni S
      • Agrifoglio M
      • Nombela-Franco L
      • Bonaros N
      • Kass M
      • Bruschi G
      • Amabile N
      • Chhatriwalla A
      • Messina A
      • Hirji SA
      • Andreas M
      • Welsh R
      • Schoels W
      • Hellig F
      • Windecker S
      • Stortecky S
      • Maisano F
      • Stone GW
      • Dvir D
      Transcatheter mitral valve replacement after surgical repair or replacement: comprehensive midterm evaluation of valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring implantation from the VIVID registry.
      Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in ViV-TMVR should be further investigated.
      The present meta-analysis may help guide clinical decision making for managing patients with degenerated bioprosthetic MVs. The favorable outcomes of ViV-TMVR in our study support ViV-TMVR over redo-SMVR as a primary strategy in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic MVs, particularly in those at intermediate-to-high surgical risk. Furthermore, an RCT of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR is unlikely, so this meta-analysis of observational studies provides the most robust evidence to favor ViV-TMVR.
      Our meta-analysis has several important limitations. First, all the included studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and the patient selection for each therapy was influenced by several factors, such as age, co-morbidities, surgical risk, and operator experience, which leads to inherent selection bias. In contrast, the included studies of the present meta-analysis might represent real-world data and real-world practice. Second, the small number of events in some of the included studies represents another limitation that must be considered when interpreting the results. Third, the included studies had a median follow-up period ranging from approximately 1 to 4.5 years, and further studies with longer follow-up are needed to better define the long-term outcomes of ViV-TMVR compared with redo-SMVR. Fourth, like all meta-analyses, the quality of our study depends on the quality of the included studies and is constrained by the limitations of the included studies.
      In conclusion, in patients with bioprosthetic MV degeneration, ViV-TMVR was associated with better outcomes than redo-SMVR, including lower complication rates and shorter hospital LOS, with no significant difference in mortality rates. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in transcatheter therapeutics, ViV-TMVR may be preferred over redo-SMVR for appropriate patients, particularly in those at intermediate-to-high surgical risk. Large-scale RCTs are needed to mitigate biases and confirm our findings. More data on the durability and long-term outcomes of ViV-TMVR are needed to extend its application to patients at lower surgical risk.

      Disclosures

      The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

      Data availability statement

      The data underlying this article are included in the article and in its Supplementary Material.

      Appendix. Supplementary materials

      • supplementary Table 1. Search strategy

        supplementary Table 2. The risk of bias assessment of the included studies

        supplementary Figure 1. Funnel plots for outcomes showing symmetrical distribution of studies and no to minimal evidence of publication bias.

      References

        • Gammie JS
        • Chikwe J
        • Badhwar V
        • Thibault DP
        • Vemulapalli S
        • Thourani VH
        • Gillinov M
        • Adams DH
        • Rankin JS
        • Ghoreishi M
        • Wang A
        • Ailawadi G
        • Jacobs JP
        • Suri RM
        • Bolling SF
        • Foster NW
        • Quinn RW.
        Isolated mitral valve surgery: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database analysis.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 106: 716-727
        • Jones JM
        • O'Kane H
        • Gladstone DJ
        • Sarsam MA
        • Campalani G
        • MacGowan SW
        • Cleland J
        • Cran GW
        Repeat heart valve surgery: risk factors for operative mortality.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001; 122: 913-918
        • Potter DD
        • Sundt 3rd, TM
        • Zehr KJ
        • Dearani JA
        • Daly RC
        • Mullany CJ
        • McGregor CG
        • Puga FJ
        • Schaff HV
        • Orszulak TA
        Risk of repeat mitral valve replacement for failed mitral valve prostheses.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 78: 67-72
        • Mehaffey HJ
        • Hawkins RB
        • Schubert S
        • Fonner C
        • Yarboro LT
        • Quader M
        • Speir A
        • Rich J
        • Kron IL
        • Ailawadi G.
        Contemporary outcomes in reoperative mitral valve surgery.
        Heart. 2018; 104: 652-656
        • Onorati F
        • Mariscalco G
        • Reichart D
        • Perrotti A
        • Gatti G
        • De Feo M
        • Rubino A
        • Santarpino G
        • Biancari F
        • Detter C
        • Santini F
        • Faggian G.
        Hospital Outcome and Risk Indices of Mortality after redo-mitral valve surgery in Potential Candidates for Transcatheter Procedures: results from a European Registry.
        J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018; 32: 646-653
        • Akins CW
        • Buckley MJ
        • Daggett WM
        • Hilgenberg AD
        • Vlahakes GJ
        • Torchiana DF
        • Madsen JC.
        Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 65: 1545-1551
        • Murzi M
        • Berti S
        • Gasbarri T
        • Trianni G
        • Maffei S
        • Solinas M
        • Dvir D
        • Cerillo AG.
        Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation versus minimally invasive surgery for failed mitral bioprostheses.
        Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 25: 57-61
        • Kamioka N
        • Babaliaros V
        • Morse MA
        • Frisoli T
        • Lerakis S
        • Iturbe JM
        • Binongo J
        • Corrigan F
        • Yousef A
        • Gleason P
        • Wells 4th, JA
        • Caughron H
        • Dong A
        • Rodriguez E
        • Leshnower B
        • O'Neill W
        • Paone G
        • Eng M
        • Guyton R
        • Block PC
        • Greenbaum A.
        Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after surgical redo mitral valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve therapy.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11: 1131-1138
        • Simonetto F
        • Purita PAM
        • Malerba M
        • Barbierato M
        • Pascotto A
        • Mangino D
        • Zanchettin C
        • Tarantini G
        • Gerosa G
        • D'Onofrio A
        • Cernetti C
        • Favero L
        • Daniotti A
        • Minniti G
        • Caprioglio F
        • Erente G
        • Hinna Danesi T
        • Frigo AC
        • Ronco F
        Surgical redo versus transseptal or transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral valve bioprosthesis.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 97: 714-722
        • Zubarevich A
        • Szczechowicz M
        • Arjomandi Rad A
        • Vardanyan R
        • Marx P
        • Lind A
        • Jánosi RA
        • Roosta-Azad M
        • Malik R
        • Kamler M
        • Thielmann M
        • El Gabry M
        • Schmack B
        • Ruhparwar A
        • Weymann A
        • Wendt D
        Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation.
        PLoS One. 2021; 16e0256569
        • Simard T
        • Lloyd J
        • Crestanello J
        • Thaden JJ
        • Alkhouli M
        • Guerrero M
        • Rihal CS
        • Eleid MF.
        Five-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve implantation and redo surgery for mitral prosthesis degeneration.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022; 99: 1659-1665
      1. Szlapka M, Hausmann H, Timm J, Bauer A, Metz D, Pohling D, Fritzsche D, Gyoten T, Kuntze T, Dörge H, Feyrer R, Brambate A, Sodian R, Buchholz S, Sack FU, Höhn M, Fischlein T, Eichinger W, Franke U, Nagib R, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender herzchirurgischer Krankenhausärzte e.V. (ALHK) Study Group. Transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus conventional redo surgery for degenerated mitral valve prostheses and rings in a multicenter registry [published online August 6, 2022]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.032.

        • Zia Khan M
        • Zahid S
        • Khan MU
        • Kichloo A
        • Jamal S
        • Mannan Khan Minhas A
        • Ullah W
        • Sattar Y
        • Balla S
        Redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve in valve from the national inpatient sample.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2021; 10e020948
        • Gill J
        • Zahra F
        • Retzer E.
        In-hospital outcomes and predictors of mortality for redo surgical mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement.
        Am J Cardiol. 2022; 176: 89-95
        • Osman M
        • Al-Hijji MA
        • Kawsara A
        • Patel B
        • Alkhouli M.
        Comparative outcomes of mitral valve in valve implantation versus redo mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprotheses.
        Am J Cardiol. 2020; 132: 175-176
        • Page MJ
        • McKenzie JE
        • Bossuyt PM
        • Boutron I
        • Hoffmann TC
        • Mulrow CD
        • Shamseer L
        • Tetzlaff JM
        • Akl EA
        • Brennan SE
        • Chou R
        • Glanville J
        • Grimshaw JM
        • Hróbjartsson A
        • Lalu MM
        • Li T
        • Loder EW
        • Mayo-Wilson E
        • McDonald S
        • McGuinness LA
        • Stewart LA
        • Thomas J
        • Tricco AC
        • Welch VA
        • Whiting P
        • Moher D.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: n71
        • Guerrero M
        • Salinger M
        • Pursnani A
        • Pearson P
        • Lampert M
        • Levisay J
        • Russell H
        • Feldman T.
        Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve: a step by step guide from preprocedural planning to postprocedural care.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 92: E185-E196
        • Hamid NB
        • Khalique OK
        • Monaghan MJ
        • Kodali SK
        • Dvir D
        • Bapat VN
        • Nazif TM
        • Vahl T
        • George I
        • Leon MB
        • Hahn RT.
        Transcatheter valve implantation in failed surgically inserted bioprosthesis: review and practical guide to echocardiographic imaging in valve-in-valve procedures.
        JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 8: 960-979
        • Urena M
        • Himbert D
        • Brochet E
        • Carrasco JL
        • Iung B
        • Nataf P
        • Vahanian A.
        Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement using balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves: a step-by-step approach.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10: 1905-1919
        • Bapat V.
        Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them.
        EuroIntervention. 2014; 10: U44-U51
        • Whisenant B
        • Kapadia SR
        • Eleid MF
        • Kodali SK
        • McCabe JM
        • Krishnaswamy A
        • Morse M
        • Smalling RW
        • Reisman M
        • Mack M
        • O'Neill WW
        • Bapat VN
        • Leon MB
        • Rihal CS
        • Makkar RR
        • Guerrero M.
        One-year outcomes of mitral valve-in-valve using the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve.
        JAMA Cardiol. 2020; 5: 1245-1252
        • Vohra HA
        • Whistance RN
        • Roubelakis A
        • Burton A
        • Barlow CW
        • Tsang GM
        • Livesey SA
        • Ohri SK.
        Outcome after redo-mitral valve replacement in adult patients: a 10-year single-centre experience.
        Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012; 14: 575-579
        • Fukunaga N
        • Okada Y
        • Konishi Y
        • Murashita T
        • Kanemitsu H
        • Koyama T.
        Impact of tricuspid regurgitation after redo valvular surgery on survival in patients with previous mitral valve replacement.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 1983-1988
        • 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
        • de Weger A
        • Windecker S
        • Moat NE
        • Napodano M
        • Wilbring M
        • Cerillo AG
        • Brecker S
        • Tchetche D
        • Lefèvre T
        • De Marco F
        • Fiorina C
        • Petronio AS
        • Teles RC
        • Testa L
        • Laborde JC
        • Leon MB
        • Kornowski R
        • Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry Investigators
        Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 162-170
        • Ricci D
        • Pellegrini C
        • Aiello M
        • Alloni A
        • Cattadori B
        • D'Armini AM
        • Rinaldi M
        • Viganò M
        Port-access surgery as elective approach for mitral valve operation in re-do procedures.
        Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010; 37: 920-925
        • Yoon SH
        • Whisenant BK
        • Bleiziffer S
        • Delgado V
        • Dhoble A
        • Schofer N
        • Eschenbach L
        • Bansal E
        • Murdoch DJ
        • Ancona M
        • Schmidt T
        • Yzeiraj E
        • Vincent F
        • Niikura H
        • Kim WK
        • Asami M
        • Unbehaun A
        • Hirji S
        • Fujita B
        • Silaschi M
        • Tang GHL
        • Kuwata S
        • Wong SC
        • Frangieh AH
        • Barker CM
        • Davies JE
        • Lauten A
        • Deuschl F
        • Nombela-Franco L
        • Rampat R
        • Nicz PFG
        • Masson JB
        • Wijeysundera HC
        • Sievert H
        • Blackman DJ
        • Gutierrez-Ibanes E
        • Sugiyama D
        • Chakravarty T
        • Hildick-Smith D
        • de Brito Jr, FS
        • Jensen C
        • Jung C
        • Smalling RW
        • Arnold M
        • Redwood S
        • Kasel AM
        • Maisano F
        • Treede H
        • Ensminger SM
        • Kar S
        • Kaneko T
        • Pilgrim T
        • Sorajja P
        • Van Belle E
        • Prendergast BD
        • Bapat V
        • Modine T
        • Schofer J
        • Frerker C
        • Kempfert J
        • Attizzani GF
        • Latib A
        • Schaefer U
        • Webb JG
        • Bax JJ
        • Makkar RR
        Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification.
        Eur Heart J. 2019; 40: 441-451
        • Yamamoto M
        • Hayashida K
        • Mouillet G
        • Chevalier B
        • Meguro K
        • Watanabe Y
        • Dubois-Rande JL
        • Morice MC
        • Lefèvre T
        • Teiger E.
        Renal function-based contrast dosing predicts acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6: 479-486
        • Zubarevich A
        • Zhigalov K
        • Szczechowicz M
        • Thielmann M
        • Rabis M
        • Van den Eynde J
        • Sá MPBO
        • Weissenberger W
        • Kadyraliev B
        • Enginoev S
        • Jánosi RA
        • Lind A
        • Rassaf T
        • Schmack B
        • Ruhparwar A
        • Weymann A
        • Wendt D.
        Simultaneous transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation and off-pump coronary artery bypass: an effective hybrid approach.
        J Card Surg. 2021; 36: 1226-1231
        • Kho J
        • Ioannou A
        • O'Sullivan KE
        • Jones M.
        Permanent pacemaker implantation rates following cardiac surgery in the modern era.
        Ir J Med Sci. 2020; 189: 1289-1294
        • Simonato M
        • Whisenant B
        • Ribeiro HB
        • Webb JG
        • Kornowski R
        • Guerrero M
        • Wijeysundera H
        • Søndergaard L
        • De Backer O
        • Villablanca P
        • Rihal C
        • Eleid M
        • Kempfert J
        • Unbehaun A
        • Erlebach M
        • Casselman F
        • Adam M
        • Montorfano M
        • Ancona M
        • Saia F
        • Ubben T
        • Meincke F
        • Napodano M
        • Codner P
        • Schofer J
        • Pelletier M
        • Cheung A
        • Shuvy M
        • Palma JH
        • Gaia DF
        • Duncan A
        • Hildick-Smith D
        • Veulemans V
        • Sinning JM
        • Arbel Y
        • Testa L
        • de Weger A
        • Eltchaninoff H
        • Hemery T
        • Landes U
        • Tchetche D
        • Dumonteil N
        • Rodés-Cabau J
        • Kim WK
        • Spargias K
        • Kourkoveli P
        • Ben-Yehuda O
        • Teles RC
        • Barbanti M
        • Fiorina C
        • Thukkani A
        • Mackensen GB
        • Jones N
        • Presbitero P
        • Petronio AS
        • Allali A
        • Champagnac D
        • Bleiziffer S
        • Rudolph T
        • Iadanza A
        • Salizzoni S
        • Agrifoglio M
        • Nombela-Franco L
        • Bonaros N
        • Kass M
        • Bruschi G
        • Amabile N
        • Chhatriwalla A
        • Messina A
        • Hirji SA
        • Andreas M
        • Welsh R
        • Schoels W
        • Hellig F
        • Windecker S
        • Stortecky S
        • Maisano F
        • Stone GW
        • Dvir D
        Transcatheter mitral valve replacement after surgical repair or replacement: comprehensive midterm evaluation of valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring implantation from the VIVID registry.
        Circulation. 2021; 143: 104-116