Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR).

Methods Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study.

Results ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusion ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

Keywords

valve-in-valve - redo surgery - deteriorated aortic valve bioprosthesis - cardiac surgery - early outcomes

• References

• 1 Kaneko T, Vassileva CM, Englum B. et al. Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100 (04) 1298-1304 , discussion 1304
• 2 Silaschi M, Wendler O, Seiffert M. et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017; 24 (01) 63-70
• 3 Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation 2012; 126 (19) 2335-2344
• 4 Dvir D, Leipsic J, Blanke P. et al. Coronary obstruction in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: preprocedural evaluation, device selection, protection, and treatment. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8 (01) e002079
• 5 Erlebach M, Wottke M, Deutsch MA. et al. Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7 (09) 1494-1500
• 6 Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P. et al; Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42 (05) S45-S60
• 7 Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV. et al; Acute Kidney Injury Network. Acute kidney injury network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 2007; 11 (02) R31
• 8 Lopez-Delgado JC, Esteve F, Torrado H. et al. Influence of acute kidney injury on short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: risk factors and prognostic value of a modified RIFLE classification. Crit Care 2013; 17 (06) R293
• 9 Coylewright M, Mack MJ, Holmes Jr DR, O'Gara PT. A call for an evidence-based approach to the Heart Team for patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65 (14) 1472-1480
• 10 Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A. et al. Intermediate-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a novel RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis. J Thorac Dis 2019; 11 (07) 3039-3046
• 11 Tam DY, Vo TX, Wijeysundera HC, Dvir D, Friedrich JO, Fremes SE. Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 92 (07) 1404-1411
• 12 Sedeek AF, Greason KL, Sandhu GS, Dearani JA, Holmes Jr DR, Schaff HV. Transcatheter Valve-in-valve vs surgical replacement of failing stented aortic biological valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2019; 108 (02) 424-430
• 13 Abdel-Wahab M, Mehilli J, Frerker C. et al; CHOICE investigators. Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 311 (15) 1503-1514
• 14 Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M. et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart 2018; 104 (10) 828-834
• 15 Saxon JT, Allen KB, Cohen DJ, Chhatriwalla AK. Bioprosthetic valve fracture during valve-in-valve TAVR: bench to bedside. Interv Cardiol (Lond) 2018; 13 (01) 20-26
• 16 Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM. et al. The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 106 (01) 14-22
• 17 Hirji SA, Percy ED, Zogg CK. et al. Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (29) 2747-2755