Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus surgical redo aortic root replacement in patients with degenerated freestyle aortic bioprosthesis

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for elderly patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Postoperative delirium after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative delirium (POD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the time of the first human TAVR procedure in 2002 until December 24, 2021, which was supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies. Data were collected on incidence rates, risk factors, and/or associated mortality of POD after TAVR. Pooled analyses were conducted using random effects models to yield mean differences, odds ratios, hazard ratios, and risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 70 articles (69 studies) comprising 413,389 patients were included. The study heterogeneity was substantial. The pooled mean incidence of POD after TAVR in all included studies was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.7%-11.0%), whereas that in studies using validated tools to assess for delirium at least once a day for at least 2 consecutive days after TAVR was 20.7% (95% CI: 17.8%-23.7%). According to the level of evidence and results of meta-analysis, independent preoperative risk factors with a high level of evidence included increased age, male sex, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation/flutter, weight loss, electrolyte abnormality, and impaired Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; intraoperative risk factors included non-transfemoral access and general anesthesia; and acute kidney injury was a postoperative risk factor. POD after TAVR was associated with significantly increased mortality (pooled unadjusted RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.79-2.71; pooled adjusted RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.25-2.10), particularly long-term mortality (pooled unadjusted HR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.91-4.23; pooled adjusted HR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.30-2.73).

CONCLUSIONS

POD after TAVR is common and is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Accurate identification of risk factors for POD after TAVR and implementation of preventive measures are critical to improve prognosis.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?

INTRODUCTION

Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient.

EXPERT OPINION

With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%).

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.