Comparison of Postdischarge Outcomes Between Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement

Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement versus redo-surgical mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bioprosthetic mitral valve degeneration is traditionally treated with Redo-SMVR, but the latest ViV-TMVR procedure offers a less invasive and lower risk alternative. A systematic literature search was conducted on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception till 15th April 2024. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We included a total of eleven studies with 11,931 patients in the final quantitative and qualitative analysis. When comparing ViV-TMVR with Redo-SMVR, no significant difference was found for 30-day mortality (P = 0.13) and 1-year mortality (P = 0.91), whereas patients in the ViV-TMVR showed significantly reduced incidence of stroke (P < 0.00001), In-hospital mortality (P), bleeding complications (P = 0.003), AKI (P = 0.0006), arrhythmias (P = 0.01), LVOT obstruction (P = 0.04), and PPI (P < 0.00001). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between either group when comparing vascular complications (P = 0.97), 2-year mortality (P = 0.60) and 3-year mortality. ViV-TMVR was associated with a significant risk of paravalvular leakage (P = 0.008). Although, ViV-TMVR reduces the risk of complications associated with Redo-SMVR, larger studies are imperative to reach conclusive results.

Cardiac Reoperation or Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Patients With Failed Mitral Prostheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding patient outcomes comparing redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo SMVR) vs transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for failed prostheses.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of redo SMVR vs TMVR in patients with failed prostheses, as well as evaluate the association between case volume and outcomes.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who underwent redo SMVR or TMVR for failed mitral prostheses between 2016 and 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was mid-term (up to 3 years) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including all-cause death, heart failure rehospitalization, stroke, or reintervention. Propensity score-matched analysis was used.

RESULTS

A total of 4,293 patients were included (redo SMVR: 64%; TMVR: 36%). TMVR recipients were older, with a higher comorbidity burden. In matched cohort (n = 1,317 in each group), mid-term risk of MACE was similar (adjusted HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.04; P = 0.2). However, landmark analysis revealed a lower risk of MACE with TMVR in the first 6 months (adjusted HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88; P < 0.001) albeit with a higher risk beyond 6 months (adjusted HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.04-1.58; P = 0.02). Increasing procedural volume was associated with decreased risk of mid-term MACE after redo SMVR (P = 0.001) but not after TMVR (P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with failed mitral prostheses, outcomes were similar between redo SMVR and TMVR at 3 years, with TMVR showing a lower initial risk but a higher risk of MACE after 6 months. These findings highlight the importance of striking a balance between surgical risk, anticipated longevity, and hospital expertise when selecting interventions.