Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses: are patients with small surgical bioprostheses at higher risk for unfavourable mid-term outcomes?

Recent Outcomes of Surgical Redo Aortic Valve Replacement in Prosthetic Valve Failure

BACKGROUND

 As redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is relatively high risk, valve-in-valve transcatheter AVR has emerged as an alternative for failed prostheses. However, the majority of studies are outdated. This study assessed the current clinical outcomes of redo AVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 This study enrolled 324 patients who underwent redo AVR due to prosthetic valve failure from 2010 to 2021 in four tertiary centers. The primary outcome was operative mortality. The secondary outcomes were overall survival, cardiac death, and aortic valve-related events. Logistic regression analysis, clustered Cox proportional hazards models, and competing risk analysis were used to evaluate the independent risk factors. Redo AVR was performed in 242 patients without endocarditis and 82 patients with endocarditis. Overall operative mortality was 4.6% (15 deaths). Excluding patients with endocarditis, the operative mortality of redo AVR decreased to 2.5%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that endocarditis (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.990, p = 0.014), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR: 1.006, p = 0.037), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.956, p = 0.034) were risk factors of operative mortality. Endocarditis and lower LVEF were independent predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

 The relatively high risk of redo AVR was due to reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis. The outcomes of redo AVR for nonendocarditis are excellent. Our findings suggest that patients without endocarditis, especially with acceptable LVEF, can be treated safely with redo AVR.

Valve-in-valve procedures for degenerated surgical and transcatheter aortic valve bioprostheses using a latest-generation self-expanding intra-annular transcatheter heart valve

Background

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for failing aortic surgical bioprostheses or transcatheter heart valves (THV) has demonstrated a reasonable clinical and hemodynamic efficacy. Traditionally, self-expanding (SE) supra-annular THV are considered to result in superior hemodynamics compared with balloon-expandable intra-annular THV after ViV. However, so far no data are found on latest-generation intra-annular SE THV for aortic ViV procedures which might be superior with regard to coronary access or subsequent valve reintervention.

Aim

We herein aim to evaluate a latest-generation SE intra-annular THV for aortic ViV procedures.

Materials and methods

Between May 2022 and November 2022, five consecutive patients (4/5 female with mean age of 76.2 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score of 2.9%) received ViV TAVI using the Navitor system (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) for treatment of failing surgical bioprostheses or THV. Data were retrospectively analyzed according to updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions.

Results

At 30 days, absence of mortality and VARC-3 adjudicated clinical endpoints were documented. Echocardiography at 30 days revealed complete absence of paravalvular leakage and single-digit mean transvalvular gradients (mean of 6.0 mmHg) in all patients.

Conclusion

The investigated intra-annular SE THV results in excellent 30-day outcomes for aortic ViV procedures for failing surgical bioprostheses or THV. Despite the intra-annular design, hemodynamic results were excellent, even in small bioprostheses. Ease of use of this valve platform is reflected by only two cycles of resheathing in five ViV procedures with hemodynamic stability during all steps of valve deployment.

Report on outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and redo surgical aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands

Objective

We sought to investigate real-world outcomes of patients with degenerated biological aortic valve prostheses who had undergone valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) or reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) in the Netherlands.

Methods

Patients who had undergone ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR for a degenerated biological aortic valve prosthesis in the Netherlands between January 2014 and December 2018 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients with a prior homograft, active endocarditis or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis were excluded. Patients were matched using the propensity score. The primary endpoint was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality at different time points, in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from the Netherlands Heart Registration.

Results

From 16 cardiac centres, 653 patients were included in the study (374 ViV-TAVI and 279 redo-SAVR). European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I) was higher in ViV-TAVI patients (19.4, interquartile range (IQR) 13.3–27.9 vs 13.8, IQR 8.3–21.9, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching, 165 patients were matched with acceptable covariate balance. In the matched cohorts, the primary endpoint was not significantly different for ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57–3.02). Procedural, 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality rates, incidence of in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year were also similar between cohorts.

Conclusion

Patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR have similar mortality and morbidity.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01608-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.