Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Structural valve degeneration is increasingly seen given the higher rates of bioprosthetic heart valve use for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is an attractive alternate for patients who are otherwise at high risk for reoperative surgery. We compared patients who underwent VIV-TAVR and native valve TAVR through a retrospective analysis of our institutional transcatheter valve therapy (TVT) database from 2013 to 2022. Patients who underwent either a native valve TAVR or VIV-TAVR were included. VIV-TAVR was defined as TAVR in patients who underwent a previous surgical aortic valve replacement. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to obtain survival estimates. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for the multivariable analysis of mortality. A total of 3,532 patients underwent TAVR, of whom 198 (5.6%) underwent VIV-TAVR. Patients in the VIV-TAVR cohort were younger than patients who underwent native valve TAVR (79.5 vs 84 years, p <0.001), with comparable number of women and a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (6.28 vs 4.46, p <0.001). The VIV-TAVR cohort had a higher incidence of major vascular complications (2.5% vs 0.8%, p = 0.008) but lower incidence of permanent pacemaker placement (2.5% vs 8.1%, p = 0.004). The incidence of stroke was comparable between the groups (VIV-TAVR 2.5% vs native TAVR 2.4%, p = 0.911). The 30-day readmission rates (VIV-TAVR 7.1% vs native TAVR 9%, p = 0.348), as well as in-hospital (VIV-TAVR 2% vs native TAVR 1.4%, p = 0.46), and overall (VIV-TAVR 26.3% vs native TAVR 30.8%, p = 0.18) mortality at a follow-up of 1.8 years (0.83 to 3.5) were comparable between the groups. The survival estimates were also comparable between the groups (log-rank p = 0.27). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, VIV-TAVR was associated with decreased hazards of death (hazard ratio 0.68 [0.5 to 0.9], p = 0.02). In conclusion, VIV-TAVR is a feasible and safe strategy for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. There may be potentially higher short-term morbidity with VIV-TAVR, with no overt impact on survival.

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 versus isolated redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using institutional databases of transcatheter (2013-2022) and surgical (2011-2022) aortic valve replacements. Patients who underwent ViV TAVR were compared with patients who underwent redo isolated SAVR. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for heart failure readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 4200 TAVRs and 2306 isolated SAVRs were performed. Of these, there were 198 patients who underwent ViV TAVR and 147 patients who underwent redo SAVR. Operative mortality was 2% in each group, but observed to expected operative mortality in the redo SAVR group was higher than in the ViV TAVR group (1.2 vs 0.32). Those who underwent redo SAVR were more likely to require transfusions and reoperation for bleeding, to have new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis, and to require a permanent pacemaker postoperatively than those in the ViV group. Mean gradient was significantly lower in the redo SAVR group than in the ViV group at 30 days and 1 year. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1 year were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ViV TAVR was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death compared with redo SAVR (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.65-2.99; P = .40). Competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for heart-failure readmissions were higher in the ViV cohort. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were associated with comparable mortality. Patients who underwent redo SAVR had lower postoperative mean gradients and greater freedom from heart failure readmissions, but they also had more postoperative complications than the VIV group, despite their lower baseline risk profiles.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Concomitant Aortic Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with moderate or greater aortic regurgitation (AR). METHODS: This was an observational study using an institutional database of TAVRs from November 2012 to April 2022. The study compared outcomes of TAVR in patients with isolated aortic stenosis (AS) vs patients with AS and concomitant AR (moderate or greater). Those patients with trace or mild AR were excluded. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were compared, with end points established by the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression for mortality were performed. Competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for heart failure readmissions were also compared. RESULTS: Of 3295 patients, 605 (53.4%) had severe AS with no AR and 529 (46.6%) had severe AS with moderate or severe AR. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, length of stay, stroke, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker requirement, transfusion requirement, minor or major vascular complications, or 30-day readmissions between the 2 groups (P > .05). There were also no significant differences in annular dissection or rupture, coronary obstruction, or device embolization. Mean gradient and paravalvular leak rates at 30 days and 1 year were similar between the groups. Survival estimates were comparable, and, on multivariable Cox regression, mixed aortic valvular disease was not associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with isolated AS (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.81-1.25; P = .962). Cumulative incidence estimates for heart failure readmissions were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR can be safely performed in patients with mixed valvular disease, with outcomes comparable to those in isolated AS.