The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (EAPCI)

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00472

1. Department of Cardiology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA; 2. Section of Cardiovascular Research, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Department, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA; 3. Department of Cardiology, St. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, NJ, USA; 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA; 5. Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 6. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

Background: Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) following the United States Food and Drug Administration approval of ViV TAVI in 2015.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month outcomes of ViV TAVI versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent ViV TAVI or repeat SAVR utilising the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2018. Primary outcomes were all-cause readmission (at 30 days and 6 months) and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, pacemaker implantation, 30-day/6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and mortality during readmission. Propensity score-matching (inverse probability of treatment weighting) analyses were implemented.

Results: Out of 6,769 procedures performed, 3,724 (55%) patients underwent ViV TAVI, and 3,045 (45%) underwent repeat SAVR. ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.90, p=0.026) and a higher rate of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13-1.90, p=0.004) and 6-month all-cause readmission (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.14-2.10, p=0.006) compared with repeat SAVR. All secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but higher 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission. However, there was no difference in risk of in-hospital stroke, post-procedure pacemaker implantation, MACE, and mortality during 30-day and 6-month readmission compared with repeat SAVR, suggesting that ViV TAVI can be performed safely in carefully selected patients.

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

Read next article
Mechanical thrombectomy with retrievable stents and aspiration catheters for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials