Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00437

Salman Zahid
Salman Zahid1, MD; Waqas Ullah2, MD; Anas M. Hashem1, MD; Muhammad Zia Khan3, MD, MS; Smitha Gowda4, MD; Alec Vishnevsky2, MD; David L. Fischman2, MD
1. Department of Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA; 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA; 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

Background: Data on the safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) in patients with a history of bioprosthetic mitral valve (MV) remain limited.

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the in-hospital, 30-day and 6-month readmission outcomes of ViV-TMVR compared with redo-SMVR in a real-world cohort.

Methods: The Nationwide Readmission Database was utilised, analysing data from 2015 to 2019. To determine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), we used the propensity-matched analysis for major outcomes at index hospitalisation, 30 days, and 6 months during the episode of readmission.

Results: A total of 3,691 patients were included, of these, 24.2% underwent ViV-TMVR and 75.8% underwent redo-SMVR. Patients undergoing ViV-TMVR were older with higher rates of comorbidities. The mean length of stay (15 days vs 4 days) and cost of hospitalisation ($76,558 vs $46,743) were significantly higher for redo-SMVR. The rate of in-hospital all-cause mortality was also significantly lower in ViV-TMVR (2.6% vs 7.3%). By contrast, 30-day all-cause mortality during the episode of readmission (aOR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-2.55) and all-cause readmission rates (aOR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02) were similar between both groups. The incidence of all-cause readmissions at 6 months (aOR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.05) and all-cause mortality during the episode of readmission at 6 months (aOR 1.84, 95% CI: 0.54-6.36) were also comparable. The utilisation of the ViV-TMVR procedure increased significantly during our study duration, from 5.2% to 36.8%, (ptrend<0.01).

Conclusions: ViV-TMVR is associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality, complications, and resource utilisation. The all-cause readmissions and 30-day and 6-month mortality during the episode of readmissions were comparable between both groups.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

mitral regurgitationmitral stenosisMitral valvuloplasty
Read next article
Percutaneous treatment options for acute pulmonary embolism: a clinical consensus statement by the ESC Working Group on pulmonary circulation and right ventricular function and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Latest news