Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve.

Background: Transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures. Results: ViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001) at 30 days, which was essentially driven by a higher rate (56.2% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.001) of high residual gradient (mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg). Despite a trend for higher 30-day mortality in the Redo-SAVR vs. ViV-TAVR group (8.7% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 3.70 [0.77-17.6]; p = 0.10), the long-term mortality was significantly lower (24.2% vs. 50.1% at 8 years; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.48 [0.26-0.91]; p = 0.03) in the Redo-SAVR group. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, Redo-SAVR remained significantly associated with reduced long-term mortality compared with ViV-TAVR (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.22-0.46]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: ViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, and Impact of Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the incidence, predictors, management, and prognosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following TAVR. BACKGROUND: About one-half of the patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have concurrent coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the occurrence and clinical impact of coronary events following TAVR remain largely unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in our institution between May 2007 and November 2017 were included. Patients were followed at 1, 6, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter. ACS was diagnosed and classified according to the Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. RESULTS: A total of 779 patients (mean age 79 ± 9 years, 52% male, mean STS: 6.8 ± 5.1%) were included, 68% of which had a history of CAD. At a median follow-up of 25 (interquartile range: 10 to 44) months, 78 patients (10%) presented at least 1 episode of ACS, with one-half of the events occurring within the year following TAVR. Clinical presentation was type 2 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (35.9%), unstable angina (34.6%), type 1 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (28.2%), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (1.3%). Male sex (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36 to 3.54; p = 0.001), prior CAD (HR: 2.78; 95% CI: 1.50 to 5.18; p = 0.001), and nontransfemoral approach (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.75; p = 0.035) were independently associated with ACS. Coronary angiography was performed in 53 (67.9%) patients with ACS, and 30 of them (56.6%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. In-hospital death rate at the time of the ACS episode was 3.8%. At a median follow-up of 21 (interquartile range: 8 to 34) months post-ACS, all-cause and cardiovascular death rates were 37.3% and 25.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-tenth of patients undergoing TAVR were readmitted for an ACS after a median follow-up of 25 months. Male sex, prior CAD, and nontransfemoral approach were independent predictors of ACS. ACS was associated with high midterm mortality.

Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Data on long-term outcomes after valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are scarce. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term clinical outcomes and structural valve degeneration (SVD) over time in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients undergoing ViV-TAVR in 9 centers between 2009 and 2015 were included. Patients were followed yearly, and clinical and echocardiography data were collected prospectively. SVD was defined as subclinical (increase >10 mm Hg in mean transvalvular gradient+decrease >0.3 cm2 in valve area or new-onset mild or moderate aortic regurgitation) and clinically relevant (increase >20 mm Hg in mean transvalvular gradient+decrease >0.6 cm2 in valve area or new-onset moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation). A total of 116 patients (mean age, 76±11 years; 64.7% male; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 8.0±5.1%) were included. Balloon- and self-expandable valves were used in 47.9% and 52.1% of patients, respectively, and 30-day mortality was 6.9%. At a median follow-up of 3 years (range, 2-7 years), 30 patients (25.9%) had died, 20 of them (17.2%) from cardiovascular causes. Average mean transvalvular gradients remained stable up to 5-year follow-up ( P=0.92), but clinically relevant SVD occurred in 3/99 patients (3.0%), and 15/99 patients (15.1%) had subclinical SVD. One patient with SVD had redo ViV-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: About one-fourth of ViV-TAVR recipients had died after a median follow-up of 3 years. Overall valve hemodynamics remained stable over time and clinically relevant SVD was infrequent, but 1 out of 10 patients exhibited some degree of SVD.