Meta-Analysis of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo-surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

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 older 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.

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years

Background

This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used.

Methods

We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons.

Results

A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177). After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation- related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17-11.93; p<0.001).

Conclusion

Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves. The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.

Third-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve with Reverse Parachute Sealing Cuff in Patients with Aortic Valve Disease

BACKGROUND

The Navitor (Abbott Inc, IL, USA) transcatheter heart valve is a novel third-generation self-expanding bioprosthesis with specific features to mitigate paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Owing to its novelty, there is a paucity of data on its application in clinical practice.

METHODS

Consecutive cohort analysis of the use of the Navitor system in an as-treated clinical setting at a quaternary heart hospital.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive non-clinical trial patients treated with Navitor were identified. All patients underwent a successful procedure. The mean age was 79.3 years (±SD 7.82), 56.67% (n=34) were female, and the mean STS score was 4.87 (±SD 5.70). At 30 days post-procedure, all patients were alive with no readmissions for heart failure. One patient had a major vascular complication (1.7%). Four patients (7.14% of patients without a pre-existing pacemaker) received a new permanent pacemaker. Two patients (3.4%) had a non-disabling stroke. PVR at 30 days was trivial or none in 75% of patients, and no patient had worse than mild PVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The Navitor system in this as-treated cohort was associated with favourable clinical, haemodynamic, and safety outcomes.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From Pre-Procedural Planning to Procedural Scenarios and Possible Complications

Over the last decades, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) have been increasingly implanted instead of mechanical valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a common issue at follow-up and can justify the need for a reintervention. In the evolving landscape of interventional cardiology, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a remarkable innovation to address the complex challenges of patients previously treated with SAVR and has rapidly gained prominence as a feasible technique especially in patients at high surgical risk. On the other hand, the expanding indications for TAVR in progressively younger patients with severe aortic stenosis pose the crucial question on the long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), as patients might outlive the bioprosthetic valve. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of ViV TAVR for failed surgical and transcatheter BHVs, with a specific focus on current clinical evidence, pre-procedural planning, procedural techniques, and possible complications. The combination of integrated Heart Team discussion with interventional growth curve makes it possible to achieve best ViV TAVR results and avoid complications or put oneself ahead of time from them.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Past, present, and future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a ground-breaking, minimally invasive alternative to traditional open-heart surgery, primarily designed for elderly patients initially considered unsuitable for surgical intervention due to severe aortic stenosis. As a result of successful large-scale trials, TAVR is now being routinely applied to a broader spectrum of patients. In deciding between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement, clinicians evaluate various factors, including patient suitability and anatomy through preprocedural imaging, which guides prosthetic valve sizing and access site selection. Patient surgical risk is a pivotal consideration, with a multidisciplinary team making the ultimate decision in the patient's best interest. Periprocedural imaging aids real-time visualization but is influenced by anaesthesia choices. A comprehensive postprocedural assessment is critical due to potential TAVR-related complications. Numerous trials have demonstrated that TAVR matches or surpasses surgery for patients with diverse surgical risk profiles, ranging from extreme to low risk. However, long-term follow-up data, particularly in low-risk cases, remains limited, and the applicability of published results to younger patients is uncertain. This review delves into key TAVR studies, pinpointing areas for potential improvement while delving into the future of this innovative procedure. Furthermore, it explores the expanding role of TAVR technology in addressing other heart valve replacement procedures.

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.

Open-Heart Cardio-Thoracic Biological Valve Replacement Following Complicated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently becoming the method of choice in high-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Post-TAVI complications are more common owing to the increasing use of the method. The majority of TAVI complications derive from concomitant aortic stenosis with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, paravalvular leak, and atrioventricular block. The contemporary TAVI qualification process includes a thorough echocardiography and angio-CT of the aorta, which is crucial in assessing valve measurements, determining the position of the coronary arteries branching from the aorta, and choosing the optimal valve size. We present the case report of an 81-year-old patient admitted to our hospital because of exacerbation of the clinical condition and development of pulmonary edema a few days after TAVI. Despite the reduction of the initial leak, an echocardiographic examination revealed the remaining severe paravalvular aortic leakage. We performed open-heart cardio-thoracic surgery, explanted the TAVI valve, and implanted the biological prosthesis (Edwards Perimount Magna size 25). Introduction of new interventional treatment approaches and the availability of imaging tools have substantially reduced the incidence of significant paravalvular leak and offered a better prognosis for patients undergoing TAVI.

Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve intervention in patients with previous stentless or stented bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available concerning comparative outcomes of redo aortic valve interventions, including surgery after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either stented or stentless bioprostheses. We investigated the comparative outcomes of redo aortic valve interventions, including surgery after AVR with either stented or stentless bioprostheses.

METHODS

The cohort consisted of 112 patients who underwent aortic valve intervention for infective endocarditis or structural valve deterioration between 2001 and 2020. One hundred patients received a stented valve (stented group) and 12 patients received a stentless valve (stentless group) during the initial surgery. Early and late outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean [IQR] ages during the current interventions were 66 [54, 77] years in the stented group and 74 [67, 79] years in the stentless group (P = 0.13). In the stented group, aortic valve interventions included redo AVRs with stented valves (n = 54), mechanical valves (n = 26), stentless valves (n = 16), and transcatheter aortic valve implantations (n = 4). In the stentless group, redo AVRs were performed with stented valves (n = 4), mechanical valves (n = 2), stentless valves (n = 1), and transcatheter valve implantations (n = 5). Hospital mortality was observed in 2 (2%) patients in the stented group and 1 (8%) patients in the stentless group (P = 0.29). The 5-year survival was 80.8% [66.8, 88.5] in the stented group and 91.7% [53.9, 98.8] in stentless group. Statistically significant differences in thromboembolisms were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in early and mid-term outcomes (except thromboembolism) after aortic valve interventions were detected between patients with stented and stentless AVRs.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Incidence, Outcomes and Predictors of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Al Azhar University Hospitals and National Heart Institute, Egypt

Background: Aortic regurgitation (AR), which has ill-defined predictors and an unknown long-term influence on outcomes, is a significant transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) constraint. Objective: this research aimed to assess the prevalence, identify predictors, and evaluate the outcomes of aortic regurgitation following trans catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). 1. To calculate the prevalence of aortic regurgitation in elderly patients receiving trans catheter aortic valve implantation who have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. 2. To determine aortic regurgitation risk factors after trans catheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: From November 2017 to November 2020, this prospective observational study was done in the National Heart Institute on severe aortic valve stenosis patients above 65 years who were candidates for aortic valve replacement from the outpatient department. Results: LVEF significantly improved. Compared to before TAVI (55.08 ± 9.71), LVEF elevated to 58.9 ± 8.8 (P<0.001). Twenty-five patients (83.3%) showed class III/IV, four patients (13.3%) showed class II, and one patient (3.3%) showed class I before TAVI. While after TAVI, three patients (10%) only showed NYHA class III/IV, six patients (20 %) in class II, and 21 patients (70%) improved to be in class I. The left ventricular mass index mean was 158 ±32.37 before TAVI and 133.50 ±21.96 after TAVI (p<0.001). Compared to before TAVI (0.75 ± 0.2), mean aortic valve area was improved to 2.0 ± 0.2 following TAVI (P<0.001). A significant reduction in the mean pressure gradient from 47 ± 11.08 mmHg across the native valve prior to TAVI to 10.28 ± 3.21 mmHg across the prosthetic valve following TAVI (P <0.001). Expert commentary: The clinical and results of TAVR devices were clearly outlined in literature study. The study showed a high incidence of pacemaker implantation with Core valve and aortic regurgitation. This information strongly supports the need for a randomized trial with sufficient power to compare the most recent self-expandable valve generation to balloon expandable valves. In the 2019 PARTNER 3 prospective randomized trial, it was discovered that, when compared to surgical management, low-risk patients (defined as STS 4%) had a lower risk of the composite outcome of stroke, death, and rehospitalization at 1 year. Additionally, it was shown that TAVR had a lower risk of stroke and required less time in the hospital (3 days as opposed to 7, P0.001) than surgery [1]. In addition, despite an elevated permanent pacemaker implantation rate, the 2019 Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement revealed no inferiority for composite all-cause stroke and death, as well as a statistically significant decrease in the rates of life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation, compared with SAVR at 30 days following the procedure [2]. Conclusion: According to the study in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, TAVI is alternative, viable, safe, and successful therapy compared to traditional open-heart surgery.

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.

Strut Inversion During Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

A 74-year-old man presented with failure of a bioprosthetic aortic valve implanted 7 years earlier, with a mean gradient of 44 mm Hg across the aortic valve. During valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we came across an unusual complication of strut inversion at the lower end of the valve. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Transcatheter solutions for transcatheter aortic valve replacement dysfunction: is redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement a durable option?

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) expands into a younger and lower risk cohort of patients, many important clinical questions are raised, including the one of overall valve durability. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) is a complex clinical issue, of which structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a subcategory. Similar to surgical bioprosthesis, transcatheter heart valves (THVs) can fail over the years however, data on long-term THVs durability is lacking, especially in the lower risk cohort. Surgical explant with open aortic surgery or a second THV, described as redo-TAVR, are feasible options when the first THV fails. However long-term data in these patients is even more limited. Important clinical considerations such as the mechanism(s) of THV dysfunction, the type and timing of the second procedure must be carefully considered. There are also inherently important clinical concerns regarding redo-TAVR, such as coronary access and higher post procedure gradients. In the present keynote lecture, we review the diagnosis of THV dysfunction and transcatheter options available when SVD occurs.

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.

Report on outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and redo surgical aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands

Objective

We sought to investigate real-world outcomes of patients with degenerated biological aortic valve prostheses who had undergone valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) or reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) in the Netherlands.

Methods

Patients who had undergone ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR for a degenerated biological aortic valve prosthesis in the Netherlands between January 2014 and December 2018 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients with a prior homograft, active endocarditis or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis were excluded. Patients were matched using the propensity score. The primary endpoint was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality at different time points, in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from the Netherlands Heart Registration.

Results

From 16 cardiac centres, 653 patients were included in the study (374 ViV-TAVI and 279 redo-SAVR). European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I) was higher in ViV-TAVI patients (19.4, interquartile range (IQR) 13.3–27.9 vs 13.8, IQR 8.3–21.9, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching, 165 patients were matched with acceptable covariate balance. In the matched cohorts, the primary endpoint was not significantly different for ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57–3.02). Procedural, 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality rates, incidence of in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year were also similar between cohorts.

Conclusion

Patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR have similar mortality and morbidity.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01608-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Paravalvular Leak After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Its Incidence, Diagnosis, Clinical Implications, Prevention, Management, and Future Perspectives: A Review Article

Paravalvular leak (PVL) is very common after TAVI and has been reported to have a negative impact on both short- and long-term survival. The current study identified incidence, diagnosis, clinical implications, and prevention, management and future perspectives for post-TAVI paravalvular leak. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE, using the MeSH terms and key words "paravalvular leak," "diagnostic criteria," "implication," "influencing factors," and "prevention strategies." Studies were retained for review after meeting strict inclusion criteria that included only prospective studies evaluating Paravalvular leak in patients who had TAVI. Thirty articles were selected for inclusion, incidence of PVL across the studies ranged from 7% to 40%. Many factors have been associated with incidence and increased risk of PVL, including AVC volume, larger annulus dimensions, pre-TAVI transvalvular peak velocity, under sizing of the prosthesis, surgical, and other factors. PVL after TAVI is common and can be predicted by aortic root calcification volume, larger annulus dimensions, and pre-TAVI transvalvular peak velocity, with calcification volume being an independent predictor for PVL. The strength and nature of the association of various degrees of post-TAVI PVL and mortality are still to be further evaluated.

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.

Challenging Anatomies for TAVR-Bicuspid and Beyond

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as the standard treatment for the majority of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to patients across all risk groups, optimal patient selection strategies and device implantation techniques become increasingly important. A significant number of patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement present with challenging anatomies and clinical indications that had been historically considered a contraindication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This article aims to highlight and discuss some of the potential obstacles that are encountered in clinical practice with a particular emphasis on bicuspid aortic valve disease.

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

BACKGROUND/AIM

With the growing contemporary use of bioprosthetic valves, whose limited long-term durability has been well-documented, an increase in the need for reintervention is expected. We perform a meta-analysis to compare the current standard of care, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo SAVR) with the less invasive alternative, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) for treating structural valve deterioration.

METHODS

After a comprehensive literature search, studies comparing ViV TAVR to Redo SAVR were pooled to perform a pairwise meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Primary outcomes were 30-day and follow-up mortality.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies including 9127 patients were included. ViV TAVR patients were significantly older (mean difference [MD], 5.82; p = .0002) and more frequently had hypercholesterolemia (59.7 vs. 60.0%; p = .0006), coronary artery disease (16.1 vs. 16.1%; p = .04), periphery artery disease (15.4 vs. 5.7%; p = .004), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29.3 vs. 26.2%; p = .04), renal failure (30.2 vs. 24.0%; p = .009), and >1 previous cardiac surgery (23.6 vs. 15.9%; p = .004). Despite this, ViV TAVR was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR, 0.56; p < .0001). Conversely, Redo SAVR had lower 30-day paravalvular leak (OR, 6.82; p = .04), severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR, 3.77; p < .0001), and postoperative aortic valve gradients (MD, 5.37; p < .0001). There was no difference in follow-up mortality (HR, 1.02; p = .86).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having patients with an increased baseline risk, ViV TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality, while Redo SAVR had lower paravalvular leak, severe patient-prosthesis mismatch, and postoperative gradients. Although ViV TAVR remains a feasible treatment option in high-risk patients, randomized trials are necessary to elucidate its efficacy over Redo SAVR.