Mitral surgical redo versus transapical transcatheter mitral valve implantation

Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement versus redo-surgical mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bioprosthetic mitral valve degeneration is traditionally treated with Redo-SMVR, but the latest ViV-TMVR procedure offers a less invasive and lower risk alternative. A systematic literature search was conducted on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception till 15th April 2024. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We included a total of eleven studies with 11,931 patients in the final quantitative and qualitative analysis. When comparing ViV-TMVR with Redo-SMVR, no significant difference was found for 30-day mortality (P = 0.13) and 1-year mortality (P = 0.91), whereas patients in the ViV-TMVR showed significantly reduced incidence of stroke (P < 0.00001), In-hospital mortality (P), bleeding complications (P = 0.003), AKI (P = 0.0006), arrhythmias (P = 0.01), LVOT obstruction (P = 0.04), and PPI (P < 0.00001). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between either group when comparing vascular complications (P = 0.97), 2-year mortality (P = 0.60) and 3-year mortality. ViV-TMVR was associated with a significant risk of paravalvular leakage (P = 0.008). Although, ViV-TMVR reduces the risk of complications associated with Redo-SMVR, larger studies are imperative to reach conclusive results.

Procedural selection strategy and clinical outcomes in mitral valve surgery with concomitant aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

Introduction

In the context of double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients involving both the aortic and mitral valves, a clinically significant problem has been that no clear criteria or surgical strategies have been reported for the selection of mitral valve plasty (MVP) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) for mitral valve disease management during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to achieve better clinical outcomes. This study investigated valve durability and survival using our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR in elderly patients.

Methods

Eighty-six patients aged > 65 years (mean 75 years) who underwent a double-valve procedure for mitral valve surgery with concomitant SAVR from 2010 to 2022 were reviewed. Our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR for the elderly patients was as follows: MVP was selected for patients in whom mitral valve disease was expected to be controlled with simple surgical procedures (n = 47), otherwise MVR was selected (n = 39).

Results

The hospital mortality rate was 8% (n = 7). The mean follow-up was 4.9 (0-12.3) years. And the 10-year survival rate was 62%. The 10-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation rate was 95%. No mitral valve reintervention was performed during follow-up. Echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated freedom from at least moderate mitral regurgitation in 86% of cases at 10 years.

Conclusion

In double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients, appropriate selection of the mitral valve procedure with concomitant SAVR provided better early and long-term survival and valve durability. This surgical strategy may be beneficial in elderly patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Large First-in-Human 13-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Favourable early outcomes have been reported following valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). However, reports of long-term outcomes are lacking. We aimed to evaluate early and late outcomes in a large first-in-human valve-in-valve TMVR 13-year experience.

METHODS

All patients undergoing valve-in-valve TMVR in our centre from 2008 to 2021 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, defined according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium, were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were analysed: mean age 76.8 ± 10.2 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10.7 ± 6.8%, 55.4% female, 63.9% transapical access. Thirty-day mortality was 2.5% for the total population and 0.0% after transseptal TMVR. Maximum follow-up was 13.1 years. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (interquartile range 1.8-5.3 years), 55 patients (46.2%) died, mainly from noncardiovascular causes. Valve hemodynamics were acceptable at 5 years, with 2.5% structural dysfunction. Patients treated from 2016 on (n = 68; 57.1%), following the advent of routine use of the Sapien 3 valve, CT screening, and transseptal access, were compared with those treated before 2016 (n = 51; 42.9%). Patients from 2016 on had a higher technical success rate (100.0% vs 94.1%; P = 0.04), shorter hospitalisation (P < 0.001), trending lower 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.4) and better 5-year survival (74.7% vs 41.1%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Valve-in-valve TMVR can be performed with little morbidity and low mortality. Mid- to long-term survival remains limited owing to advanced age and comorbidities. Structural bioprosthetic valve dysfunction was rare and redo TMVR feasible in selected patients. Outcomes continue to improve, but the role for valve-in-valve TMVR in lower surgical risk patients remains unclear.

Comparison of Postdischarge Outcomes Between Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement

Limited data are available comparing the postdischarge perioperative outcomes of isolated valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (VIV-TMVR) versus surgical reoperative mitral valve replacement (re-SMVR) on a nationwide scale. The objective of this study was to perform a robust head-to-head assessment of contemporary postdischarge outcomes between isolated VIV-TMVR and re-SMVR using a large national multicenter longitudinal database. Adult patients aged ≥18 years with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves who underwent either isolated VIV-TMVR or re-SMVR were identified in the 2015 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The risk-adjusted differences in 30-, 90-, and 180-day outcomes were compared using propensity score weighting with overlap weights to mimic the results of a randomized controlled trial. The differences between a transeptal and transapical VIV-TMVR approach were also compared. A total of 687 patients with VIV-TMVR and 2,047 patients with re-SMVR were included. After the overlap weighting to attain balance between treatment groups, VIV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower major morbidity within 30 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.0.31 [0.22 to 0.46]), 90 (0.34 [0.23 to 0.50]), and 180 (0.35 [0.24 to 0.51]) days. The differences in major morbidity were primarily driven by less major bleeding (0.20 [0.14 to 0.30]), new onset complete heart block (0.48 [0.28 to 0.84]) and need for permanent pacemaker placement (0.26 [0.12 to 0.55]). The differences in renal failure and stroke were not significant. VIV-TMVR was also associated with shorter index hospital stays (median difference [95% CI] -7.0 [4.9 to 9.1] days) and an increased ability for patients to be discharged home (odds ratio [95% CI] 3.35 [2.37 to 4.72]). There were no significant differences in total hospital costs; in-hospital or 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality; or readmission. The findings remained similar when stratifying the VIV-TMVR access using a transeptal versus a transapical approach. The changes in outcomes over time suggest marked improvements for patients with VIV-TMVR relative to stagnant results for patients with re-SMVR from 2015 to 2019. In this large nationally representative cohort of patients with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, VIV-TMVR appears to confer a short-term advantage over re-SMVR in terms of morbidity, discharge home, and length of stay. It yielded equivalent outcomes for mortality and readmission. Longer-term studies are needed to assess further follow-up beyond 180 days.

Valve-in-valve/valve-in-ring transcatheter mitral valve implantation vs. redo surgical mitral valve replacement for patients with failed bioprosthetic valves or annuloplasty rings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Valve-in-valve (ViV)/valve-in-ring (ViR) transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) is a less invasive alternative to redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR). To further verify its feasibility, we aimed to appraise early clinical outcomes after either ViV/ViR TMVI or redo SMVR for failed bioprosthetic valves or annuloplasty rings, as a comparison of long-term follow-up results are not available for these procedures.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared ViV/ViR TMVI and redo SMVR. Fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses were used to compare the early clinical results between these two groups.

Results

A total of 3,890 studies published from 2015 to 2022 were searched, and ten articles comprising 7,643 patients (ViV/ViR TMVI, 1,719 patients; redo SMVR, 5,924 patients) were included. In this meta-analysis, ViV/ViR TMVI significantly improved in-hospital mortality (fixed-effects model: odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.92; P = 0.008) and for the matched populations (fixed-effects model: OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.61; P < 0.00001). ViV/ViR TMVI also outperformed redo SMVR in 30-day mortality and in rates of early postoperative complications. ViV/ViR TMVI resulted in less time spent in the ICU and hospital, whereas it showed no significant difference in one-year mortality. A lack of comparison of long-term clinical outcomes and postoperative echocardiographic results are important limitations of our results.

Conclusions

ViV/ViR TMVI is a reliable alternative to redo SMVR for failed bioprosthetic valves or annuloplasty rings as a result of lower in-hospital mortality, higher 30-day survival, and lower early postoperative complication rates, although there is no significant difference in 1-year mortality.

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

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.

Mitral Valve-in-Valve Versus Repeat Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Failed Mitral Bioprostheses

Background

Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MViV) replacement has emerged as an alternative to redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR) in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses deemed to be at a high surgical risk. The aim of this analysis was to compare the outcomes of MViV replacement with those of redo-SMVR in patients with a failed bioprosthetic mitral valve.

Methods

We performed a study-level meta-analysis that compared MViV replacement with redo-SMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses. Seven observational studies, with a total of 5083 patients, were included (1138 patients [22.4%] in the MViV replacement arm). The primary focus was all-cause mortality. Additional outcomes included major bleeding, stroke, vascular complications, and mean mitral valve gradient at follow-up.

Results

The in-hospital mortality was lower in patients who underwent MViV replacement than in those who underwent redo-SMVR (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P = .0023). The short-term mortality (<1 year) was numerically lower in the MViV replacement group (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.18-1.13; P = .069). At 1 year, the risk of mortality was similar in the 2 groups (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40; P = .906), and at midterm follow-up (≥1 year), there was a numerically higher risk of mortality in the MViV replacement group (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.00-2.29; P = .051). The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower in the MViV replacement group (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.56; P = .01). Additionally, stroke and vascular complications were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

The in-hospital mortality was lower in the MViV replacement group than in the redo-SMVR group. There were no differences in mortality at short-term (<1 year), 1-year, or midterm (≥1 year) follow-ups.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

Data on the safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) in patients with a history of bioprosthetic mitral valve (MV) remain limited.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the in-hospital, 30-day and 6-month readmission outcomes of ViV-TMVR compared with redo-SMVR in a real-world cohort.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database was utilised, analysing data from 2015 to 2019. To determine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), we used the propensity-matched analysis for major outcomes at index hospitalisation, 30 days, and 6 months during the episode of readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 3,691 patients were included, of these, 24.2% underwent ViV-TMVR and 75.8% underwent redo-SMVR. Patients undergoing ViV-TMVR were older with higher rates of comorbidities. The mean length of stay (15 days vs 4 days) and cost of hospitalisation ($76,558 vs $46,743) were significantly higher for redo-SMVR. The rate of in-hospital all-cause mortality was also significantly lower in ViV-TMVR (2.6% vs 7.3%). By contrast, 30-day all-cause mortality during the episode of readmission (aOR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-2.55) and all-cause readmission rates (aOR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02) were similar between both groups. The incidence of all-cause readmissions at 6 months (aOR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.05) and all-cause mortality during the episode of readmission at 6 months (aOR 1.84, 95% CI: 0.54-6.36) were also comparable. The utilisation of the ViV-TMVR procedure increased significantly during our study duration, from 5.2% to 36.8%, (ptrend<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

ViV-TMVR is associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality, complications, and resource utilisation. The all-cause readmissions and 30-day and 6-month mortality during the episode of readmissions were comparable between both groups.

Non-Inferiority of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the TAVR Era: David versus Goliath

BACKGROUND

The rapid development of transcatheter treatment methods has made transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a feasible alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, indications for TAVR have been expanded to intermediate- and low-risk patients, although there still remains a portion of ineligible patients. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with sutureless SAVR and transapical TAVR in the "grey-area" of patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.

METHODS

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 248 consecutive patients underwent a sutureless SAVR (SU-SAVR) or TA-TAVR at our institution. We performed a pair-matched analysis and identified 56 patient pairs based on the EuroSCORE II. All transcatheter procedures were performed using SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses, while all surgical procedures deployed the Perceval (LivaNova) aortic valve.

RESULTS

All patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the median EuroSCORE-II of 3.1% (IQR 1.9-5.3). Thirty-four patients from the surgical group (60.7%) underwent a concomitant myocardial revascularization. There was no significant difference in major adverse events, pacemaker implantation or postoperative mortality during follow-up. Both interventions demonstrated technical success with similar mean postoperative pressure gradients at follow-up and no cases of paravalvular leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement constitutes a feasible treatment alternative for patients with aortic valve disease who are ineligible for transfemoral access route and/or require concomitant coronary revascularization. With its excellent hemodynamic performance, similar survival compared to TA-TAVR, and high cost-efficiency without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay SU-AVR might be considered for patients in the "grey-area" between TAVR and SAVR.