Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: An updated meta‐analysis comparing midterm outcomes

Recent Outcomes of Surgical Redo Aortic Valve Replacement in Prosthetic Valve Failure

BACKGROUND

 As redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is relatively high risk, valve-in-valve transcatheter AVR has emerged as an alternative for failed prostheses. However, the majority of studies are outdated. This study assessed the current clinical outcomes of redo AVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 This study enrolled 324 patients who underwent redo AVR due to prosthetic valve failure from 2010 to 2021 in four tertiary centers. The primary outcome was operative mortality. The secondary outcomes were overall survival, cardiac death, and aortic valve-related events. Logistic regression analysis, clustered Cox proportional hazards models, and competing risk analysis were used to evaluate the independent risk factors. Redo AVR was performed in 242 patients without endocarditis and 82 patients with endocarditis. Overall operative mortality was 4.6% (15 deaths). Excluding patients with endocarditis, the operative mortality of redo AVR decreased to 2.5%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that endocarditis (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.990, p = 0.014), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR: 1.006, p = 0.037), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.956, p = 0.034) were risk factors of operative mortality. Endocarditis and lower LVEF were independent predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

 The relatively high risk of redo AVR was due to reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis. The outcomes of redo AVR for nonendocarditis are excellent. Our findings suggest that patients without endocarditis, especially with acceptable LVEF, can be treated safely with redo AVR.

Impact of reintervention after index aortic valve replacement on the risk of subsequent mortality

Objectives

The use of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is inherently associated with a risk of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and the need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention. We sought to evaluate whether AV reintervention, in the form of repeat surgical AVR (SAVR) or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), negatively affects patients' subsequent long-term survival after index SAVR.

Methods

We identified patients who had undergone bioprosthetic SAVR from 2002 to 2017 at our institution. Median longitudinal follow-up after index SAVR was 7.3 years (10.9 years for those with and 7.2 years for those without AV reintervention), and median follow-up after AV reintervention was 1.9 years. Cox regression analyses using AV reintervention (re-SAVR and ViV-TAVR) as a time-varying covariate were used to determine the impact of reintervention on subsequent survival.

Results

Of 4167 patients who underwent index SAVR, 139 (3.3%) required AV reintervention for SVD, with re-SAVR being performed in 65 and ViV-TAVR in 74. Median age at the index SAVR was 73 years (interquartile range, 64-79 years), and 2541 (61%) were male. Overall, there were total of 1171 mortalities observed, of which 13 occurred after re-SAVR and 9 after ViV-TAVR. AV reintervention was associated with a greater risk of subsequent mortality compared with those patients who did not require AV reintervention (hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.88, P < .001). This increased risk of subsequent mortality was more pronounced for those who received their index AVR when <65 years of age (hazard ratio, 5.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.57-12.22, P < .001) versus those ≥65 years (2.06, 1.21-3.52, P = .008). Direct comparison of survival between those who underwent re-SAVR versus ViV-TAVR showed 5-year survival to be comparable (re-SAVR: 74% vs ViV-TAVR: 80%, P = .67).

Conclusions

Among patients receiving bioprosthetic AVR, an AV reintervention for SVD is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality, regardless of re-SAVR or ViV-TAVR, and this risk is greater among younger patients. These findings should be balanced with individual preferences at index AVR in the context of patients' lifetime management of aortic stenosis.

Incidence and Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Failed Bioprosthetic Valves

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely used, comparably efficient and safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Its utilization continues to grow, especially among younger patients. Despite improvements in durability, degeneration and subsequent re-interventions of failed prosthetic valves are still common. Even though valve-in-valve procedures have become more frequent, little is known about the trends over time or about clinical and echocardiographic long-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent a valve-in-valve procedure between December 2011 and December 2022 in a large tertiary university hospital were analyzed. Primary outcomes were defined as procedural and device successes as well as event-free survival. Secondary analyses between subsets of patients divided by index valve and date of procedure were performed.

RESULTS

Among 1407 procedures, 58 (4%) were valve-in-valve interventions, with an increased frequency observed over time. Overall, technical success was achieved in 88% and device success in 85% of patients. Complications were predominantly minor, with similar success rates among TAVR-in-SAVR (TiSAVR) and TAVR-in-TAVR (TiTAVR). Notably, there were significant and lasting improvements in mean echocardiographic gradients at 1 year. Event-free survival was 76% at one month and 69% at one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last decade, a rising trend of valve-in-valve procedures was observed. Despite an increase in procedures, complications show a contrasting decline with improved technical and device success over time. TiSAVR and TiTAVR showed comparable rates of procedural and device success as well as similar outcomes, highlighting the utility of valve-in-valve procedures in an aging population.

A 20-year journey in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution to current eminence

Since the first groundbreaking procedure in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis (AS). Through striking developments in pertinent equipment and techniques, TAVI has now become the leading therapeutic strategy for aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic AS. The procedure streamlining from routine use of conscious sedation to a single arterial access approach, the newly adapted implantation techniques, and the introduction of novel technologies such as intravascular lithotripsy and the refinement of valve-bioprosthesis devices along with the accumulating experience have resulted in a dramatic reduction of complications and have improved associated outcomes that are now considered comparable or even superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These advances have opened the road to the use of TAVI in younger and lower-risk patients and up-to-date data from landmark studies have now established the outstanding efficacy and safety of TAVI in patients with low-surgical risk impelling the most recent ESC guidelines to propose TAVI, as the main therapeutic strategy for patients with AS aged 75 years or older. In this article, we aim to summarize the most recent advances and the current clinical aspects involving the use of TAVI, and we also attempt to highlight impending concerns that need to be further addressed.

Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.

Lifetime management for aortic stenosis: Planning for future therapies

A shift to lifetime management has gained more focus with the approval of low-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This paper is therefore focused on the different approaches for lifetime management. Herein we discuss the procedural safety, durability, performance, and future options for each lifetime management strategy. In younger patients that elect to undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), options for bioprosthetic failure are TAV-in-SAV or redo SAVR. Among patients that undergo TAVR, options for valve failure include TAVR explant with SAVR or TAV-in-TAV. Additionally, there are patients who may require a third valvular intervention. The initial therapy may limit re-intervention options down the road. This review discusses how options for future therapies affect the decision of SAVR vs TAVR in younger patients.

Rapid Deployment Valves Are Advantageous in the Redo Setting: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Background

The spectrum on how to manage aortic valve disease continues to widen. The purpose of this study is to add further clarification to the role of rapid deployment valves (RDVs) by comparing their outcomes with traditional sutured valves (TSVs) in the reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) setting.

Methods

This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing a second surgical reoperation for aortic valve disease. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: RDV and TSV. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine the association between exposures of interest and the primary and secondary outcomes, after adjusting for all the baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 3 years, which was the composite of all-cause death, readmission for myocardial infarct, readmission for stroke, and readmission for heart failure.

Results

A total of 307 patients made up the study population from 2010 to 2019. Of those, 254 patients received TSV, and 53 patients received RDV. RDV patients were significantly older than TSV patients by 10 years, on average. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were found with the RDV group. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of MACE within 3 years.

Conclusions

This single-centre large cohort study of patients with reoperative AVR found that RDVs facilitate smoother operations by saving 1 hour of cross-clamp time and CPB time. Furthermore, RDVs have comparable outcomes with TSVs, despite the significantly older patient population.

The selection of transcatheter heart valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter heart valve technology has rapidly progressed since initial approval in the United States. There are currently two widely available transcatheter heart valve delivery systems approved in the US; however limited data exist on optimal device selection for various patient populations. This review explores the characteristics of currently approved transcatheter heart valve systems and scenarios where one valve system may be favored over others. We provide a simplified decision tree for selecting the optimal transcatheter valve system for specific patient-centered characteristics.

Increased utilization of bioprosthetic aortic valve technology:Trends, drivers, controversies and future directions

Introduction: Bioprosthetic valves (BPV) implanted surgically or by transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) comprise an overwhelming majority of substitute aortic valves implanted worldwide.Areas Covered: Prominent drivers of this trend are: 1) BPV patients have generally better outcomes than those with a mechanical valve, and remain largely free of anticoagulation and its consequences; 2) BPV durability has improved over the years; and 3) the expanding use of TAVI and valve-in-valve (VIV) procedures permitting interventional management of structural valve degeneration (SVD). Nevertheless, key controversies exist: 1) optimal anticoagulation regimens for surgical and TAVI BPVs; 2) the incidence, mechanisms and mitigation strategies for SVD; 3) the use of VIV for treatment of SVD, and 4) valve selection recommendations for difficult cohorts, (e.g. patients 50-70 years, patients <50, childbearing age women). This communication reviews trends in and drivers of BPV utilization, current controversies, and future directions affecting BPV use.Expert Opinion: Long-term data are needed in several areas related to aortic BPV use, including anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy, especially following TAVI. TAVI and especially VIV durability and optimal use warrant will benefit greatly from long-term data. Certain populations may benefit from such high-quality data on multi-year outcomes, particularly younger patients.