Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Cardiac Surgery 2023 Reviewed

We reviewed the cardiac surgical literature for 2023. PubMed displayed almost 34,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2023." We used a PRISMA approach for a results-oriented summary. Key manuscripts addressed the mid- and long-term effects of invasive treatment options in patient populations with coronary artery disease (CAD), comparing interventional therapy (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]). The literature in 2023 again confirmed the excellent long-term outcomes of CABG compared with PCI in patients with left main stenosis, specifically in anatomically complex chronic CAD, but even in elderly patients, generating further support for an infarct-preventative effect as a prognostic mechanism of CABG. For aortic stenosis, a previous trend of an early advantage for transcatheter (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) and a later advantage for surgical (surgical aortic valve replacement) treatment was also re-confirmed by many studies. Only the Evolut Low Risk trial maintained an early advantage of TAVI over 4 years. In the mitral and tricuspid field, the number of interventional publications increased tremendously. A pattern emerges that clinical benefits are associated with repair quality, making residual regurgitation not irrelevant. While surgery is more invasive, it currently generates the highest repair rates and longest durability. For terminal heart failure treatment, donor pool expansion for transplantation and reducing adverse events in assist device therapy were issues in 2023. Finally, the aortic diameter related to adverse events and technical aspects of surgery dominated in aortic surgery. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for patient-specific decision-making.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Late Survival After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Balloon- Versus Self-Expandable Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement. There is an increasing interest in exploring the differences between self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs). Our study aimed to evaluate the all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV in patients with failed bioprostheses. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by March 30, 2023. A total of 5 studies met our eligibility criteria and included 1,454 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI (862 with SEV and 592 with BEV). Almost all BEVs were iterations of the Edwards BEVs (SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, and SAPIEN 3) and almost all SEVs were iterations of the Medtronic SEVs (CoreValve/Evolut). During the first year after ViV-TAVI, 67 deaths (11.8%) occurred in patients treated with BEV compared with 92 deaths (11.1%) in patients treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.27, p = 0.632). At 8 years of follow-up, the all-cause death was not statistically significantly different between the groups, with mortality rates of 65.4% in the group treated BEV and 58.8% in the group treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.09, p = 0.302). The restricted mean survival time was overall 0.25 years greater with SEV than BEV, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.278), which indicates no lifetime gain or loss with SEV in comparison with BEV. There seems to be no difference in terms of all-cause death in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our results.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March 2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n = 57), ViV-TAVR (n = 31) and redo-sutureless (n = 25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p = 0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Aortic Root Replacement With Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Background An aspect not so clear in the scenario of aortic surgery is how patients fare after composite aortic valve graft replacement (CAVGR) depending on the type of valve (bioprosthetic versus mechanical). We performed a study to evaluate the long-term outcomes of both strategies comparatively. Methods and Results Pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data from studies with follow-up for overall survival (all-cause death), event-free survival (composite end point of cardiac death, valve-related complications, stroke, bleeding, embolic events, and/or endocarditis), and freedom from reintervention. Twenty-three studies met our eligibility criteria, including 11 428 patients (3786 patients with mechanical valves and 7642 patients with bioprosthetic valve). The overall population was mostly composed of men (mean age, 45.5-75.6 years). In comparison with patients who underwent CAVGR with bioprosthetic valves, patients undergoing CAVGR with mechanical valves presented no statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause death in the first 30 days after the procedure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24 [95% CI, 0.95-1.60]; P=0.109), but they had a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality after the 30-day time point (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.99]; P=0.039) and lower risk of reintervention (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24-0.45]; P<0.001). Despite its increased risk for the composite end point in the first 6 years of follow-up (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.09-1.82]; P=0.009), CAVGR with mechanical valves is associated with a lower risk for the composite end point after the 6-year time point (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.31-0.67]; P<0.001). Conclusions CAVGR with mechanical valves is associated with better long-term outcomes in comparison with CAVGR with bioprosthetic valves.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedure

Background

In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR).

Methods

A cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent TAVR in the department of cardiology at Toulouse University Hospital, Rangueil, France between January 2016 and January 2020. The study population was divided into two groups: NV-TAVR (N = 1589) and VIV-TAVR (N = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed.

Results

In comparison with NV-TAVR, there are no differences in TAVR success rate (98.6 vs. 98.8%, p = 1), per-TAVR complications (p = 0.473), and length of hospital stay (7.5 ± 50.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.612). The prevalence of in-hospital adverse outcomes did not differ among study groups, including acute heart failure (1.4 vs. 1.1%), acute kidney injury (2.6, 1.4%), stroke (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.630), vascular complications (p = 0.307), bleeding events (0.617), and death (1.4 vs. 2.6%). VIV-TAVR was associated with a higher residual aortic gradient [OR = 1.139, 95%CI (1.097-1.182), p = 0.001] and a lower requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation [OR = 0.235 95%CI (0.056-0.990), p = 0.048]. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.44 ± 1.67 years, no significant difference in survival outcomes has been observed (p = 0.074).

Conclusion

VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.