Trends in redo mitral procedure for treating mitral bioprostheses failure: a single center's experience

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.

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement versus redo surgery for mitral prosthesis failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery. TMVR compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) in patients with mitral prosthesis failure remains limited. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the outcomes of TMVR (including valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring) versus redo surgery for mitral prosthesis failure.

Methods

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then we extracted data. We compared the outcomes of TMVR and redo SMVR for mitral prosthesis failure in terms of the in-hospital mortality, stroke, renal dysfunction, vascular complication, pacemaker implantation, exploration for bleeding, paravalvular leak, mean mitral valve gradient, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality.

Results

Nine retrospective cohort studies and a total of 3,038 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with redo SMVR for mitral prosthesis failure, TMVR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality [odds ratios (OR): 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.64; P < 0.001], stroke (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.29-0.67; P = 0.0001), renal dysfunction (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; P = 0.0003), vascular complication (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.78; P = 0.004), pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.15-0.36; P < 0.00001), and exploration for bleeding (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.96; P = 0.04). Conversely, redo SMVR had lower paravalvular leak (OR: 22.12; 95% CI: 2.81-174.16; P = 0.003). There was no difference in mean mitral valve gradient (MD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.55; P = 0.87), 30-day mortality (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.36-1.17; P = 0.15), and 1-year mortality (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.63-1.45; P = 0.84).

Conclusion

In patients with mitral prosthesis failure, TMVR is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and lower occurrence of postoperative complications, except for paravalvular leak. TMVR offers a viable alternative to the conventional redo surgery in selected patients.