Abstract
Abstract
Background
Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a viable alternative to redo surgery in selected patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Most ViV-TAVI procedures have been performed in stented bioprosthetic valves (ST); stentless bioprostheses (SL) lack fluoroscopic markers and could be more challenging for ViV-TAVI. Data on more recent patients applying Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined outcomes are scarce. We compared patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and 5-year mortality of patients with SL versus ST aortic bioprosthetic valve failure undergoing ViV-TAVI.
Methods
Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI between 2007 and 2022 (52.5% of cases after 2015) at 3 German centers were included in this analysis. The co-primary outcome measures were technical success, device success, and early safety defined by VARC-3. Mortality was assessed up to 5 years.
Results
Overall, 43 (11.8%) SL and 313 (88.2%) ST ViV-TAVI were included. Patients were comparable with regard to age, sex, clinically relevant baseline comorbidities, and surgical risk.
Technical success (SL: 83.7% versus ST: 79.9%, p = 0.552), device success (SL: 67.4% versus ST: 54.3%, p = 0.105), and early safety (SL: 74.4% versus ST: 66.5%, p = 0.296) were comparable between groups. The 30-day mortality (SL: 7.0% versus ST: 2.6%, p = 0.136) and 5-year mortality rates (SL: 23.3% versus ST: 24.6%, p = 0.874) were not significantly different between groups.
Conclusion
SL and ST ViV-TAVI led to comparable short-term outcomes according to VARC-3- defined endpoints and similar mortality rates up to 5 years of follow-up.
Graphical abstract
Funder
Technische Universität Dresden
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,General Medicine
Reference28 articles.
1. Hiltner E, Erinne I, Singh A, Chen C, Kassotis J, Russo M, Sethi A (2022) Contemporary trends and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement in the United States. J Card Surg 37:1980–1988
2. Silaschi M, Conradi L, Treede H, Reiter B, Schaefer U, Blankenberg S, Reichenspurner H (2016) Trends in surgical aortic valve replacement in more than 3000 consecutive cases in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantations. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 64:382–389
3. Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Puri R, Pibarot P, Rodes-Cabau J (2017) Aortic bioprosthetic valve durability: incidence, mechanisms, predictors, and management of surgical and transcatheter valve degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:1013–1028
4. Gulbins H, Reichenspurner H (2009) Which patients benefit from stentless aortic valve replacement? Ann Thorac Surg 88:2061–2068
5. Leontyev S, Borger MA, Davierwala P, Walther T, Lehmann S, Kempfert J, Mohr FW (2011) Redo aortic valve surgery: early and late outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 91:1120–1126
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献