Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis

Rationale and Design of the REPEAT Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement to Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR) has for long been the therapeutic reference standard for degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative for patients at high surgical risk due to its lower invasiveness. The long-term clinical efficacy of ViV-TAVR in patients at low to intermediate surgical risk remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To compare clinical outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement versus ViV-TAVR in low- to intermediate-risk patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses. REPEAT (Repeat Intervention for Deteriorated Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves) is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label trial. A total of 890 patients aged <75 years with a failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis due to structural valve degeneration and low to intermediate surgical risk (ie, Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of death of <8%) will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either redo surgical aortic valve replacement or ViV-TAVR. The primary end point of REPEAT is a composite of all-cause death, stroke (including both disabling and nondisabling), myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure or aortic valve reintervention at 5 years, based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 definitions. Secondary end points include each of the individual components of the primary composite end point, Valve Academic Research Consortium-3-based conduction disturbances and arrhythmia, Valve Academic Research Consortium-3-based wound and bleeding complications, functional status (ie, 6-minute walk test, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire), and treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The REPEAT trial has been designed to test the hypothesis that redo surgical aortic valve replacement is superior to ViV-TAVR regarding clinical outcomes at 5 years in patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses and low to intermediate surgical risk.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgery for failed bioprosthesis: a meta-analysis of over 20 000 patients

OBJECTIVES

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has gained popularity as a less invasive alternative to a redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR); which one is the preferred technique in these cases, however, remains a topic of debate, as the available data refer to retrospective studies with few patients or limited follow-up. The present metanalysis aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of the two techniques in the setting of a failed surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched on 10 November 2023 yielding 355 results (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023490612), of which 27 were suitable for meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were short-term and long-term all-causes and cardiovascular mortality. Logarithmic risk ratio (Log RR) and mean difference were used for categorical and continuous data, respectively.

RESULTS

Both redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI exhibited similar procedural and short-term mortality. However, ViV-TAVI demonstrated lower 1-year mortality [RR: 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.57-0.96), P = 0.02], acute kidney injury (RR: 0.47, P < 0.001), bleeding (RR: 0.44, P < 0.001), stroke (RR: 0.70, P < 0.05), and new pacemaker implantation (RR: 0.69, P < 0.05). Conversely, redo-SAVR demonstrated more favorable mean postoperative aortic valve gradients [mean difference 2.59, 95% CI (0.86-4.31), P < 0.01].

CONCLUSION

Short-term mortality was similar between the groups, but ViV-TAVI showed better survival at 1 year as well as reduced rates of acute kidney injury, bleeding, stroke, and pacemaker implantation. However, redo-SAVR leads to a better hemodynamic profile. Even if collected data come from retrospective studies, the present results could help to guide the choice of the best approach case-by-case according to the patient's clinical profile.

Multiparametric Outcome Assessment After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-A Systematic Review

Backround/Objectives: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most commonly acquired valvular disorder. Patient risk stratification and the development of an accurate and reliable tool are crucial in identifying suitable candidates for TAVI. The present review summarized the current state of knowledge on the influence of selected factors on the outcomes and course of patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: The inclusion criteria for the present systematic review were as follows: (1) studies indexed in the medical databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus; (2) full-text articles available in English; (3) papers published between 2013 and 2023; and (4) addressing the topic of assessing the impact of factors on the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI. This review used PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Results: One hundred and thirty-two studies were eligible for this review. The available studies showed an association of psychosocial and socioeconomic factors, valve parameters, comorbidities, clinical factors, treatment-related factors, biomarkers, and treatment methods with the outcomes of patients with AS undergoing TAVI. Conclusions: Given the conflicting results obtained regarding the impact of right ventricular dysfunction, paravalvular leaks, and treatment method on the mortality of patients undergoing aortic valve implantation, further research in these areas is needed. In view of the researchers' differing views on some of the factors affecting patient outcomes after TAVI, further analysis is needed to develop a new tool for assessing predictive outcomes in AS patients. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024612752).

Age-Related Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Structural Valve Deterioration

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a recognized alternative for treating the structural valve deterioration of bioprosthetic valves. Recent guidelines and trials have expanded the indications for TAVR to include younger patients with structural valve deterioration. In this study, we aimed to examine the outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVR across different age groups to understand the age-related clinical outcomes of treating structural valve deterioration following surgical aortic valve replacement and TAVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective study, we included patients who underwent valve-in-valve TAVR at our center. We compared procedural complications and clinical outcomes among patients <75 years of age (n=99), those 75 to 84 years of age (n=103), and those ≥85 years of age (n=71). Echocardiography and computed tomography were used for follow-up evaluations. This study included 273 patients and revealed a low in-hospital complication rate across all age groups. Although the 3-year risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients >85 years of age, no significant differences in the incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack were observed among age groups. All groups exhibited significant improvements in valve hemodynamics that persisted for 3 years. Although leaflet thrombosis assessed using computed tomography imaging 30 days post-TAVR was more prevalent in the older group, age was not an independent predictor of this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve TAVR was associated with an increased 3-year mortality risk among older patients despite consistent hemodynamic benefits across all age groups. Age-related differences in leaflet thrombosis did not predict hypoattenuated leaflet thickening, indicating that further studies are necessary to elucidate its implications.

What Are the Implications of Choosing a TAVR-First Strategy in the Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis?: A Critical Review of TAVR-Explant- and Redo-TAVR

Some patients with aortic stenosis may require multiple valve interventions in their lifetime, and choosing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as the initial intervention may be appealing to many. If their transcatheter heart valve degenerates later in life, most will hope to undergo redo-TAVR. However, if redo-TAVR is not feasible, some may have to undergo surgical explantation of their transcatheter heart valve (TAVR-explant). With rising numbers of TAVR in younger patients, we address the practical implications of choosing a TAVR-first strategy. In this review we explore potential factors contributing to higher-than-expected mortality after TAVR-explant, synthesize available outcomes data for TAVR-explant for structurally degenerated valves, and describe strategies to standardize and optimize surgical techniques for TAVR-explant. We also discuss clinical outcomes of redo-TAVR within the context of limitations in currently published series and highlight the potential benefit of virtual planning to assess the feasibility of future redo-TAVR before implanting the first valve. Finally, we highlight areas for future investigation to inform management strategies in patients who may require multiple aortic valve interventions.

Successful Valve-in-Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Severe Bioprosthetic Valve Restenosis in a High-Risk Patient

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has significantly improved in treating aortic valve disease in recent years, particularly in patients at high surgical risk. This case report describes an 80-year-old woman who had severe aortic stenosis previously treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and six years later had a valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVI who developed severe symptomatic restenosis of the bioprosthetic aortic valve five years later of the last procedure. A third valve-in-valve-in-valve (ViViV) TAVI using a 26-mm Sapien 3 valve was performed due to the high surgical risk. The procedure resulted in significant hemodynamic improvement, reducing the transvalvular gradient from 80-90 mmHg to 15-20 mmHg and increasing the effective orifice area from 0.4 cm² to 1.5 cm². The patient's symptoms improved to NYHA Class I. This case highlights the feasibility and safety of ViViV TAVI as a minimally invasive solution for recurrent bioprosthetic valve dysfunction in high-risk patients.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is associated with improved perioperative safety compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR), but long-term outcomes remain uncertain. We therefore compare long-term outcomes of ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR.

METHODS

The study included 1:1 propensity score-matched Medicare beneficiaries with degenerated bioprosthetic valves admitted between September 29, 2011, and December 30, 2020, undergoing either redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, other concomitant cardiac surgery, and aortic valve reintervention during the same admission. The primary outcome was 5-year survival. Composite secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (30-day operative mortality, stroke, or acute myocardial infarction) and major valve event-free survival (congestive heart failure readmission, endocarditis, or aortic valve reintervention). Time-to-event analyses used Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

Overall, 4699 patients, including 1775 redo-SAVR and 2924 ViV-TAVR patients, were identified. Redo-SAVR patients were younger (median [interquartile range], 72 [68-77] years vs 79 [73-84] years) with less congestive heart failure (39.6% vs 68.8%) and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (17.9% vs 32.0%; all P < .05). In the propensity score-matched cohorts of 1256 patients each, redo-SAVR had higher major adverse cardiovascular events (17.4% vs 13.1%; P = .003) but better major valve event-free (71 [62-79] months vs 43 [38-47] months; P < .001) and 5-year (62.3% vs 46.7%; P < .001) survival. After stratification by Charlson comorbidity index, the long-term survival benefit persisted in patients of lower (67.6% vs 54.9%; P = .001) and medium or higher risk (55.1% vs 36.7%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Redo-SAVR may have better long-term survival than ViV-TAVR despite greater perioperative morbidity. Clinical trial data are needed to fully inform clinical decision-making about degenerated bioprosthetic valve reintervention, particularly for patients with reasonable life expectancy.

Differences between valve types in anatomic changes of the aortic root after surgical aortic valve replacement

Background

When transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) is considered as a secondary interventional option, it is desirable to estimate the risk of coronary obstruction during future TAV-in-SAV before the initial surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), for which knowledge of the anatomic changes after SAVR is essential. We investigated the changes in the aortic root and evaluated the differences in changes between valve types.

Methods

Pre- and post-SAVR computed tomography scans of 124 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR with various bioprosthetic valves were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative aortic root changes and parameters related to future TAV-in-SAV were compared between the sutured valve group and rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group.

Results

After SAVR, the coronary height in the sutured valve group and rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group was shortened by a median of 4.6 to 5.3 mm and 0.5 to 2.2 mm, respectively, and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter was reduced by a median of 1.6 to 2.7 mm and 0.1 to 1.3 mm, respectively. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the rapid deployment/sutureless valve group had a coronary orifice (especially in the right coronary artery) above the risk plane. The valve-to-coronary distance and valve-to-aorta distance (VTA) were adequate in most patients. The only difference between the groups was in the left VTA.

Conclusions

Decreases in coronary height and SOV diameter were observed after SAVR, especially in the sutured valve group. The aortic root structure was better preserved in the rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group. This may be advantageous for future TAV-in-SAV. These results are important for considering the feasibility of future TAV-in-SAV.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Transcatheter or Surgical Replacement for Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Importance

The use of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been rapidly expanding as an alternative treatment to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for failed bioprosthetic valves despite limited long-term data.

Objective

To assess mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing intervention for failed bioprosthetic SAVR.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective population-based cohort analysis conducted between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, with a median (IQR) follow-up time of 2.3 (1.1-4.0) years. A total of 1771 patients with a history of bioprosthetic SAVR who underwent ViV-TAVR or redo SAVR in California, New York, and New Jersey were included. Data were obtained from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information, the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, and the New Jersey Discharge Data Collection System. Exclusion criteria included undergoing TAVR or redo SAVR within 5 years from initial SAVR, as well as infective endocarditis, concomitant surgical procedures, and out-of-state residency. Propensity matching yielded 375 patient pairs. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023.

Interventions

ViV-TAVR vs redo SAVR.

Main Outcomes and Measurements

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, heart failure hospitalization, reoperation, major bleeding, acute kidney failure, new pacemaker insertion, and infective endocarditis.

Results

From 2015 through 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR vs redo SAVR increased from 159 of 451 (35.3%) to 498 or 797 (62.5%). Of 1771 participants, 653 (36.9%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 74.4 (11.3) years. Periprocedural mortality and stroke rates were similar between propensity-matched groups. The ViV-TAVR group had lower periprocedural rates of major bleeding (2.4% vs 5.1%; P = .05), acute kidney failure (1.3% vs 7.2%; P < .001), and new pacemaker implantations (3.5% vs 10.9%; P < .001). The 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 23.4% (95% CI, 15.7-34.1) in the ViV-TAVR group and 13.3% (95% CI, 9.2-18.9) in the redo SAVR group. In a landmark analysis, no difference in mortality was observed up to 2 years (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.78), but after 2 years, ViV-TAVR was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.18-7.47) as well as with a higher incidence of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.57-9.22). There were no differences in 5-year incidence of stroke, reoperation, major bleeding, or infective endocarditis.

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with redo SAVR, ViV-TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of periprocedural complications and a similar incidence of all-cause mortality through 2 years' follow-up. However, ViV-TAVR was associated with higher rates of late mortality and heart failure hospitalization. These findings may be influenced by residual confounding and require adjudication in a randomized clinical trial.

Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review

The mechanical valve was first invented in the 1950s, and since then, a wide variety of prostheses have been developed. Although mechanical valves have outstanding durability, their use necessitates life-long treatment with anticoagulants, which increases the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. The current guidelines recommend a mechanical prosthetic valve in patients under 50-60 years; however, for patients aged 50-70 years, the data are conflicting and there is not a clear-cut recommendation. In recent decades, progress has been made in several areas. First, the On-X mechanical valve was introduced; this valve has a lower anticoagulant requirement in the aortic position. Second, a potential alternative to vitamin K-antagonist treatment, rivaroxaban, has shown encouraging results in small-scale trials and is currently being tested in a large randomized clinical trial. Lastly, an innovative mechanical valve that eliminates the need for anticoagulant therapy is under development. We attempted to review the current literature on the subject with special emphasis on the role of mechanical valves in the current era and discuss alternatives and future innovations.

Twenty-year experience following aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age

OBJECTIVE

Reports on long-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients aged < 60 years are scarce in Japan. Hence, we aimed to evaluate these outcomes in patients aged < 60 years.

METHODS

Between March 2000 and December 2020, 1477 patients underwent aortic valve replacement. In total, 170 patients aged < 60 years who underwent aortic valve replacement were recruited. Patients aged < 18 years were excluded. Patient data collected from the operative records and follow-up assessments were reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 49 ± 9 years, and 64.1% of patients were male. One-hundred-and-fifty-two patients (89.4%) underwent aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve and 18 (10.6%) with a bioprosthetic valve. The mean follow-up period was 8.1 ± 5.5 years. No operative mortality occurred, and in-hospital mortality occurred in one patient (0.6%). Ten late deaths occurred, with seven cardiac-related deaths. The overall survival rate was 95.4 ± 1.7%, 93.9 ± 2.3%, 90.6 ± 3.9%, and 73.2 ± 11.8% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. Freedom from major bleeding was 96.4 ± 1.6% at 5, 10, and 15 years, and 89.0 ± 7.3% at 20 years. Freedom from thromboembolic events was 98.7 ± 1.3%, 97.3 ± 1.9%, 90.5 ± 4.5%, and 79.0 ± 11.3% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. Freedom from valve-related reoperation was 99.4 ± 0.6% at 5 years, 97.8 ± 1.7% at 10 and 15 years, and 63.9 ± 14.5% at 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged < 60 years undergoing aortic valve replacement with a high mechanical valve implantation rate had favorable long-term outcomes.

Commentary: The Never-Ending Debate on the Type of Aortic Prosthesis in Patients Aged 50-70, as TAVR Peaks in Popularity: Which Prosthesis Should Be Used for Aortic Valve Replacement?

See Article page 242.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Lifetime Management of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using mechanical valves has been the preferred treatment for younger patients, but bioprosthetic valves are gaining favour to avoid anticoagulation with warfarin. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in recent years for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in intermediate- and low-risk patients as an alternative to SAVR. The longer life expectancy of these groups of patients might exceed the durability of the TAVR or SAVR bioprosthetic valves. Therefore, many patients need 2 or even 3 interventions during their lifetime. Because it has important implications on the feasibility of subsequent procedures, the decision between opting for SAVR or TAVR as the primary procedure requires thorough consideration by the heart team, incorporating patient preferences, clinical indicators, and anatomic aspects. If TAVR is favoured initially, selecting the valve type and determining the implantation level should be conducted, aiming for positive outcomes in the index intervention and keeping in mind the potential for subsequent TAVR-in-TAVR procedures. When SAVR is selected as the primary procedure, the operator must make choices regarding the valve type and the potential need for aortic root enlargement, with the intention of facilitating future valve-in-valve interventions. This narrative review examines the existing evidence concerning the lifelong management of severe aortic stenosis, delving into available treatment strategies, particularly emphasising the initial procedure's selection and its impact on subsequent interventions.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From Pre-Procedural Planning to Procedural Scenarios and Possible Complications

Over the last decades, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) have been increasingly implanted instead of mechanical valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a common issue at follow-up and can justify the need for a reintervention. In the evolving landscape of interventional cardiology, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a remarkable innovation to address the complex challenges of patients previously treated with SAVR and has rapidly gained prominence as a feasible technique especially in patients at high surgical risk. On the other hand, the expanding indications for TAVR in progressively younger patients with severe aortic stenosis pose the crucial question on the long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), as patients might outlive the bioprosthetic valve. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of ViV TAVR for failed surgical and transcatheter BHVs, with a specific focus on current clinical evidence, pre-procedural planning, procedural techniques, and possible complications. The combination of integrated Heart Team discussion with interventional growth curve makes it possible to achieve best ViV TAVR results and avoid complications or put oneself ahead of time from them.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March 2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n = 57), ViV-TAVR (n = 31) and redo-sutureless (n = 25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p = 0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Patient characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a failed surgical prosthesis vs in a native valve: A Danish nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a feasible and increasingly used treatment option for failed surgical aortic prosthesis, but data from clinical practice are limited. We aimed to examine patient characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI in a surgival valve (valve-in-valve TAVI) compared with patients undergoing TAVI in a native valve.

METHODS

Using nationwide registries, we identified all Danish citizens, who underwent TAVI from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 6,070 patients undergoing TAVI were identified; 247 (4%) patients had a history of SAVR (The valve-in-valve cohort). The median age of the study population was 81 (25th-75th percentile 77-85) and 55% were men. Patients with valve-in-valve-TAVI were younger but had a greater burden of cardiovascular comorbidities compared with patients with native-valve-TAVI. Within 30 days post procedure, 11 (0.2%) and 748 (13.8%) patients who underwent valve-in-valve-TAVI and native-valve-TAVI, respectively, had a pacemaker implantation. The cumulative 30-day risk of death among patients with valve-in-valve-TAVI was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.0%-5.0%) and 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3%-3.1%) in patients with native-valve-TAVI, respectively. Correspondingly, the cumulative 5-year risk of death was 42.5% (95% CI: 34.2%-50.6%) and 44.8% (95% CI: 43.2%-46.4%), respectively. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, valve-in-valve-TAVI was not associated with a significantly different risk of death at 30 days (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-2.19) and 5 years (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.00) post-TAVI compared with native-valve-TAVI.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI in a failed surgical aortic prosthesis as compared to TAVI in a native valve, was not associated with significantly different short- and long-term mortality, suggesting that valve-in-valve-TAVI is a safe procedure.

The decreasing risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement: Implications for valve choice and transcatheter therapy

OBJECTIVE

Increasing use of bioprostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in younger patients, together with wider use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, necessitates understanding risks associated with surgical valve reintervention. Therefore, we sought to identify risks of reoperative SAVR compared with those of primary isolated SAVR.

METHODS

From January 1980 to July 2017, 7037 patients underwent nonemergency isolated SAVR, with 753 reoperations and 6284 primary isolated operations. These 2 groups were propensity score-matched on 46 preoperative variables, yielding 581 patient pairs for comparing outcomes.

RESULTS

Among propensity score-matched patients, aortic clamp time (median 63 vs 52 minutes; P < .0001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (median 88 vs 67 minutes; P < .0001), and postoperative stay (median 7.1 vs 6.9 days; P = .003) were longer for reoperative SAVR than primary isolated SAVR. Hospital mortality after reoperative SAVR decreased from 3.4% in 1985 to 1.3% in 2011, similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Occurrence of stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and new renal dialysis was similar. Blood transfusion (67% vs 36%; P < .0001) and reoperations for bleeding/tamponade (6.4% vs 3.1%; P = .009) were more common after reoperative SAVR. Survival at 1, 5, 10, and 20 years was 94%, 82%, 64%, and 33% after reoperative SAVR and 95%, 86%, 72%, and 46% after elective primary isolated SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of mortality and morbidity after reoperative SAVR has declined and is now similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Decisions regarding prosthesis choice and SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement should be made in the context of lifelong disease management rather than avoidance of reoperation.

Computed tomography to guide transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Since its introduction in 2022, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of patients with aortic stenosis. Robust clinical trial data and a wealth of scientific evidence support its efficacy and safety. One of the key factors for success of the TAVI procedure is careful preprocedural planning using imaging. Computed tomography (CT) has developed into the standard imaging method for comprehensive patient assessment in this context. Suitability of the femoral and iliac arteries for transfemoral access, exact measurement of aortic annulus size and geometry as the basis for prosthesis selection, quantification of the spatial relationship of the coronary ostia to the aortic annular plane, and identification of optimal fluoroscopic projection angles for the implantation procedure are among the most important information that can be gained from preprocedural CT. Further research is aimed at improving risk stratification, for example, with respect to annular perforation, periprosthetic aortic regurgitation, and need for postprocedural implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

A Case of Valve-in-Valve-in-Valve for Severe Aortic Regurgitation: Is Lifetime Management Upon Us?

BACKGROUND

The incremental use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement will inexorably lead to structural valve deterioration and the need for both a second and third valvular interventions, raising the question of feasibility.

CASE SUMMARY

We present the case of a 76-year-old man that presented with cardiogenic shock refractory to inotropic support. His workup revealed severe bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation 5 years after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. After confirming anatomical suitability with multimodality imaging, he underwent uncomplicated valve-in-valve-in-valve (ViViV) implantation of a 23 mm Edwards S3 Ultra valve with rapid clinical improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether in the form of stenosis or severe regurgitation as in our patient, ViViV is feasible. Careful preprocedural planning and confirmation of anatomical suitability with multimodality imaging are key for success and safety.

Redo aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: a UK propensity-matched analysis

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicenter UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients underwent valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. The mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR versus 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including intra-aortic balloon pump support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p<0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve TAVI provides better early outcomes as opposed to redo-AVR, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from the hospital.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure

Background

In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR).

Methods

A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed.

Results

In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074).

Conclusion

VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

Ten years' experience with the sutureless aortic valve replacement: incidence and predictors for survival and valve durability at follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement with a sutureless prosthesis [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] is an option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, data regarding long-term outcomes and prosthesis durability are still lacking.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who successfully underwent Su-AVR with the Perceval valve in our centre between 2010 and 2020 were included in the analysis and followed prospectively with echocardiography. Risk factor analysis was performed to assess variables associated with worse survival and bioprosthetic valve failure.

RESULTS

Study population consisted of 547 patients: the mean age was 76.4 (5.2) years, 51% were female and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13% (11). The median survival was 7.76 years [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.9-8.6]. Risk factor analysis identified age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11; P < 0.001), EuroSCORE II (HR 1.08, 1.02-1.13; P < 0.001), baseline dialysis (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.4-4.4; P = 0.038) and postoperative acute kidney injury ≥2 (HR 8.97, 95% CI 4.58-17.6; P < 0.001) as factors significantly correlated with worse survival. The reported HRs for age are per 1 year and for EuroSCORE II is 1 percentage point. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was observed in 23 patients, of whom 19 underwent reintervention (median freedom from SVD 10.3 years). In multivariable Cox analysis, age (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.95; P < 0.001) was found to be a significant predictor of SVD. Overall, 1.8% was referred for prosthetic valve endocarditis (confirmed or suspected) during follow-up. One patient showed moderate non-SVD and none developed prosthetic valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The sutureless valve represents a reliable bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with a 10-year life expectancy. Younger age at the time of implant is the only factor associated with the risk of long-term SVD.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

AIMS

To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021.

RESULTS

Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22-1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22-2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?

INTRODUCTION

Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient.

EXPERT OPINION

With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.

Multicenter experience with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with primary, native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%).

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Treatment for Young and Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is now indicated across all risk categories of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has been proposed as first line option for the majority of patients >74 years old. However, median age of patients enrolled in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement low-risk trials is 74 years and transcatheter aortic valve replacement has never been systematically investigated in young low risk patients. Although the long-term data in surgical aortic valve replacement in young patients (age <75) are well known, such data remain lacking in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the absence of clear guideline recommendations in patients with challenging anatomies (eg, hostile calcium, bicuspid), it is important to know the potential advantages and disadvantages of each treatment and to consider how they might integrate with each other in the lifetime management of such patients. In this review, we discuss current outstanding issues on the management of severe aortic stenosis from a lifetime management perspective, particularly in terms of initial intervention and future reinterventions.

New adverse coronary events in valve-in-valve TAVR and native TAVR—A 2-year matched cohort

Objective

To assess the incidence of new adverse coronary events (NACE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and valve-in-valve TAVR (ViV-TAVR).

Background

ViV-TAVR is an accepted treatment for degenerative prostheses among patients with high surgical-risk. TAVR studies have suggested an increased risk of coronary artery obstruction and flow stasis causing thrombus formation. Whether contemporary ViV-TAVR is associated with higher rate of coronary events compared to TAVR is unknown.

Methods

We used data from 1,224 TAVR patients between 2016 and 2021. We propensity-matched patients following ViV-TAVR and TAVR by significant predictors to overcome confounders in patients' baseline characteristics and procedural factors.

Results

The matched population included 129 patients in each group. In line with prior reports, there was a higher in-hospital coronary artery obstruction rate with ViV-TAVR (3.1 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.23). Despite this, 2-year cumulative NACE rates were similar between groups (4.7 vs. 6.2%, respectively, p = 0.79), with no difference between its components: myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.210), unplanned coronary catheterization (p = 0.477), or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (p = 0.998). Moreover, hypoattenuated leaflets thickening (HALT) at 30-day CT was observed in nearly a quarter of the patients with no difference between groups (23.9 vs. 23.1%, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.50–1.28, p = 0.872). The progression rate of the coronary artery calcium score (CACS), assessed in a third of patients, was similar between groups (p log-rank = 0.468, 95% CI 0.12–1.24). Low coronary artery height was an unfavorable predictor for in-hospital coronary obstruction and 2-year NACE rate (HR 1.20 and HR 1.25, p = 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively).

Conclusion

At 2-year follow-up, ViV-TAVR was not associated with a higher rate of myocardial infarction, unplanned catheterization, coronary artery bypass grafting, or hypoattenuated leaflet thickening.

Coronary access following ACURATE neo implantation for transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: Ex vivo analysis in patient-specific anatomies

Background

Coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with supra-annular self-expandable valves may be challenging or un-feasible. There is little data concerning coronary access following transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) for degenerated surgical bioprosthesis.

Aims

To evaluate the feasibility and challenge of coronary access after ViV-TAVI with the supra-annular self-expandable ACURATE neo valve.

Materials and methods

Sixteen patients underwent ViV-TAVI with the ACURATE neo valve. Post-procedural computed tomography (CT) was used to create 3D-printed life-sized patient-specific models for bench-testing of coronary cannulation. Primary endpoint was feasibility of diagnostic angiography and PCI. Secondary endpoints included incidence of challenging cannulation for both diagnostic catheters (DC) and guiding catheters (GC). The association between challenging cannulations with aortic and transcatheter/surgical valve geometry was evaluated using pre and post-procedural CT scans.

Results

Diagnostic angiography and PCI were feasible for 97 and 95% of models respectively. All non-feasible procedures occurred in ostia that underwent prophylactic “chimney” stenting. DC cannulation was challenging in 17% of models and was associated with a narrower SoV width (30 vs. 35 mm, p < 0.01), STJ width (28 vs. 32 mm, p < 0.05) and shorter STJ height (15 vs. 17 mm, p < 0.05). GC cannulation was challenging in 23% of models and was associated with narrower STJ width (28 vs. 32 mm, p < 0.05), smaller transcatheter-to-coronary distance (5 vs. 9.2 mm, p < 0.05) and a worse coronary-commissural overlap angle (14.3° vs. 25.6^o, p < 0.01). Advanced techniques to achieve GC cannulation were required in 22/64 (34%) of cases.

Conclusion

In this exploratory bench analysis, diagnostic angiography and PCI was feasible in almost all cases following ViV-TAVI with the ACURATE neo valve. Prophylactic coronary stenting, higher implantation, narrower aortic sinus dimensions and commissural misalignment were associated with an increased challenge of coronary cannulation.

Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement or re-surgical aortic valve replacement in degenerated bioprostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of short and midterm results

INTRODUCTION

Despite limited to short and midterm outcomes, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a valid alternative to re-surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) for high- and intermediate-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

All studies comparing multivariate adjustment between ViV TAVI and re-SAVR were screened. The primary end-points were all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality at 30 days and at Midterm follow-up. Short-term complications were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

We obtained data from 11 studies, encompassing 8570 patients, 4224 undergoing ViV TAVI, and 4346 re-SAVR. Four studies included intermediate-risk patients and seven high-risk patients. 30-day all-cause and CV mortality were significantly lower in ViV (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.29-0.64 and OR 0.44, 0.26-0.73 respectively), while after a mean follow-up of 717 (180-1825) days, there was no difference between the two groups (OR 1.04, 0.87-1.25 and OR 1.05, 0.78-1.43, respectively). The risk of stroke (OR 1.03, 0.59-1.82), MI (OR 0.70, 0.34-1.44), major vascular complications (OR 0.92, 0.50-1.67), and permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.67, 0.36-1.25) at 30 days did not differ, while major bleedings and new-onset atrial fibrillation were significantly lower in ViV patients (OR 0.41, 0.25-0.67 and OR 0.23, 0.12-0.42, respectively, all 95% CIs).

CONCLUSIONS

In high- and intermediate-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprostheses, ViV TAVI is associated with reduced short-term mortality, compared with re-SAVR. Nevertheless, no differences were found in all-cause and CV mortality at midterm follow-up. PROSPERO CRD42021226488.

Early- and mid-term outcomes of reinterventions for aortic bioprosthesis failure

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term results of our actual practice embedding redo aortic valve replacement and transcatheter procedures for aortic bioprosthetic failure.

METHODS

Data for aortic valve reinterventions (redo surgical aortic valve replacement, isolated redo aortic valve replacement, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure) were collected (2010-2019). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors favouring the choice of transcatheter against redo surgery. Cox analysis was used to study the association of preoperative variables with survival. Survival probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were included (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 84 patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41 patients). Median age was 74 [63-80] years, 58% of the patients were male and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 15 [8-26] %. There was no early mortality. Eighteen patients (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 15, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3) sustained at least one postoperative complication. At pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation had significantly higher trans-prosthetic gradients (mean gradient: valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation 18 mmHg vs. redo surgical aortic valve replacement 14 mmHg, p < 0.001). Overall survival probabilities were 94% and 73% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Previous coronary artery bypass surgery operation and age were independently associated with lower survival probabilities during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo surgical aortic valve replacement and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation are both safe and effective for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Further valve-in-valve data are needed to determine the haemodynamic performance of transcatheter prostheses and its impact on long-term outcomes.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) following the United States Food and Drug Administration approval of ViV TAVI in 2015.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month outcomes of ViV TAVI versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent ViV TAVI or repeat SAVR utilising the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2018. Primary outcomes were all-cause readmission (at 30 days and 6 months) and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, pacemaker implantation, 30-day/6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and mortality during readmission. Propensity score-matching (inverse probability of treatment weighting) analyses were implemented.

RESULTS

Out of 6,769 procedures performed, 3,724 (55%) patients underwent ViV TAVI, and 3,045 (45%) underwent repeat SAVR. ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.90, p=0.026) and a higher rate of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13-1.90, p=0.004) and 6-month all-cause readmission (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.14-2.10, p=0.006) compared with repeat SAVR. All secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but higher 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission. However, there was no difference in risk of in-hospital stroke, post-procedure pacemaker implantation, MACE, and mortality during 30-day and 6-month readmission compared with repeat SAVR, suggesting that ViV TAVI can be performed safely in carefully selected patients.

Practical Approach to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture in a Failed Bioprosthetic Surgical Valve

Bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve failure requiring reintervention is a frequent clinical problem with event rates up to 20% at 10 years after surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has become a valuable treatment option for these patients, although it requires careful procedural planning. We here describe and illustrate a stepwise approach to plan and perform ViV-TAVI and discuss preprocedural computerized tomography planning, transcatheter heart valve selection, and implantation techniques. Particular attention is paid to coronary artery protection and the possible need for bioprosthetic valve fracture since patients with small surgical aortic bioprostheses are at a risk of high residual gradients after ViV-TAVI. Considering updated clinical data on long-term outcomes following ViV-TAVI, this approach may become the default treatment strategy for patients with a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis.

Trans-Catheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation for the Treatment of Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Failure

Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure is a valid treatment option for patients affected by bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) degeneration. However, ViV implantation is technically more challenging compared to native trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A deep knowledge of the mechanism and features of the failed BHV is pivotal to plan an adequate procedure. Multimodal imaging is fundamental in the diagnostic and pre-procedural phases. The main challenges associated with ViV TAVR consist of a higher risk of coronary obstruction, severe post-procedural patient-prosthesis mismatch, and a difficult coronary re-access. In this review, we describe the principles of ViV TAVR.

Early and Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Degeneration: Two Faces of the Same Medal

OBJECTIVE

To compare early and midterm outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

DESIGN

Patients who underwent ViV-TAVI and re-SAVR for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration between January 2010 and October 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Mean follow-up was 3.0 years.

SETTING

In-hospital, early, and mid-term outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-eight patients were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-one patients (37.3%) had ViV-TAVI, and 57 patients (62.7%) had re-SAVR.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the ViV-TAVI group, patients were older (79.1 ± 7.4 v 67.2 ± 14.1, p < 0.01). The total operative time, intubation time, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, inotropes infusion, intubation >24 hours, total amount of chest tube losses, red blood cell transfusions, plasma transfusions, and reoperation for bleeding were significantly higher in the re-SAVR cohort (p < 0.01). There was no difference regarding in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (ViV-TAVI = 3.2% v re-SAVR = 8.8%, p = 0.27), patient-prosthesis mismatch (ViV-TAVI = 12 patients [mean 0.53 ± 0.07] and re-SAVR = ten patients [mean 0.56 ± 0.08], p = 0.4), stroke (ViV-TAVI = 3.2% v re-SAVR = 7%, p = 0.43), acute kidney injury (ViV-TAVI = 9.7% v re-SAVR = 15.8%, p = 0.1), and all-cause infections (ViV-TAVI = 0% v re-SAVR = 8.8%, p = 0.02), between the two groups. In-hospital mortality was 0% and 7% for ViV-TAVI and re-SAVR, respectively (p = 0.08). At three-years' follow-up, the incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the re-SAVR group (ViV-TAVI = 0 v re-SAVR = 13.4%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in reintervention (ViV-TAVI = 3.8% v re-SAVR = 0%, p = 0.32) and survival (ViV-TAVI = 83.9% v re-SAVR = 93%, p = 0.10) between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV-TAVI is a safe, feasible, and reliable procedure.

Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already received the green light for high-, intermediate- and low-risk profiles and is an alternative for all patients regardless of age. It is clear that there has been a push towards the use of TAVR in younger and younger patients (<65 years), which has never been formally tested in randomized controlled trials but seems inevitable as TAVR technology makes steady progress. Lifetime management as a concept will set the tone in the field of the structural heart. Some subjects in this scenario arise, including the importance of optimized prosthetic hemodynamics for lifetime care; surgical procedures in the aortic root; management of structural valve degeneration with valve-in-valve procedures (TAVR-in-surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and TAVR-in-TAVR) and redo SAVR; commissural alignment and cusp overlap for TAVR; the rise in the number of surgical procedures for TAVR explantation; and the renewed interest in the Ross procedure. This article reviews all these issues which will become commonplace during heart team meetings and preoperative conversations with patients in the coming years.