Aortic valve versus root surgery after failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Valve Type and Operative Risks in Surgical Explantation of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Indication to perform surgical explantation of TAVR is becoming increasingly more frequent, due to the higher number of transcatheter procedures performed in patients with longer life expectancy. We proposed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with metaregression to identify potential factors that can determine an increase in the high mortality and morbidity that characterize these surgical procedures. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for relevant studies. Twelve studies were eligible according to our inclusion criteria. TAVR explantation was confirmed as a procedure with high 30-day mortality (0.17; 95% CI, 0.14-0.21) and morbidity (stroke incidence 5%; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07; kidney injury incidence 16%; 95% CI, 0.11-0.24). The type of transcatheter valve implanted during the index procedure did not influence the outcomes after surgical explantation. The role of these high-risk operations is growing, and it will likely expand in the coming years. Specific tools for risk stratification are required.

Impact of transcatheter heart valve type on outcomes of surgical explantation after failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the EXPLANT-TAVR international registry

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the impact of transcatheter heart valve (THV) type on the outcomes of surgical explantation after THV failure.

AIMS

We sought to determine the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation for failed balloon-expandable valves (BEV) versus self-expanding valves (SEV).

METHODS

From November 2009 to February 2022, 401 patients across 42 centres in the EXPLANT-TAVR registry underwent TAVR explantation during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Mechanically expandable valves (N=10, 2.5%) were excluded. The outcomes of TAVR explantation were compared for 202 (51.7%) failed BEV and 189 (48.3%) failed SEV.

RESULTS

Among 391 patients analysed (mean age: 73.0±9.8 years; 33.8% female), the median time from index TAVR to TAVR explantation was 13.3 months (interquartile range 5.1-34.8), with no differences between groups. Indications for TAVR explantation included endocarditis (36.0% failed SEV vs 55.4% failed BEV; p<0.001), paravalvular leak (21.2% vs 11.9%; p=0.014), structural valve deterioration (30.2% vs 21.8%; p=0.065) and prosthesis-patient mismatch (8.5% vs 10.4%; p=0.61). The SEV group trended fewer urgent/emergency surgeries (52.0% vs 62.3%; p=0.057) and more root replacement (15.3% vs 7.4%; p=0.016). Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 57.8% of patients, including coronary artery bypass graft (24.8%), and mitral (38.9%) and tricuspid (14.6%) valve surgery, with no differences between groups. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality and stroke rates were similar between groups (allp>0.05), with no differences in cumulative mortality at 3 years (log-rank p=0.95). On multivariable analysis, concomitant mitral surgery was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality after BEV explant (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-3.72) and SEV explant (HR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.08-3.69).

CONCLUSIONS

In the EXPLANT-TAVR global registry, BEV and SEV groups had different indications for surgical explantation, with more root replacements in SEV failure, but no differences in midterm mortality and morbidities. Further refinement of TAVR explantation techniques are important to improving outcomes.

True redo-aortic root replacement versus root replacement after any previous surgery

Objective

The impact of previous aortic root replacement (True-Redo) versus any previous operation (Any-Redo) on outcomes after reoperative aortic root replacement (redo-ROOT) is largely unknown. In this first multi-institutional study, the clinical impact True-Redo versus Any-Redo in the setting of redo-ROOT was reviewed.

Methods

From 2004 to 2021, 822 patients underwent redo-ROOT at 2 major academic centers: 638 Any-Redo and 184 True-Redo. Matching based on preoperative demographics and concomitant operations resulted in 174 matched pairs. An independent risk factor analysis was performed to determine risk factors for early and late mortality.

Results

Patients in the True-Redo group were younger, at 49.9 ± 15.1 versus 55.3 ± 14.7 years, P < .001. Concomitant operations were largely similar between the 2 groups, P > .05. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < .001) and aortic crossclamp time (P = .03) were longer for True-Redo group. In-hospital mortality was 13% (109) and was without significant difference between groups, P = .41. Ten-year survival was 78% versus 76% for True-Redo versus Any-Redo groups respectively, P = .7. Landmark survival analysis at 4 years' postoperatively on the matched groups found that patients in the True-Redo group had improved survival outcomes (P = .046). Risk factors of in-hospital mortality consisted of older age (P < .0001), lower ejection fraction (P = .02), and male patient (P = .0003).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes following redo-ROOT are excellent. Performance of a True-Redo-ROOT does not result in worse in-hospital morbidity or mortality and has improved survival benefit at midterm follow-up when compared with patients in the Any-Redo group. The decision to perform a redo-ROOT must be taken seriously and must be individualized in a patient-specific manner for optimal outcomes.

Redo-TAVR: Essential Concepts, Updated Data and Current Gaps in Evidence

Within the last two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the treatment strategy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), representing a less invasive alternative to traditional open-chest surgery. With time, advances in device features, imaging planning, and implantation techniques have contributed to an improvement in safety as well as a reduction in procedural complications. This has led to the expansion of TAVR to lower-risk patients, where TAVR has shown favorable outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As TAVR expands to younger and lower-risk patients with longer life expectancies, the need for reintervention for failing transcatheter heart valves is expected to increase. Redo-TAVR has gained increasing relevance in the lifetime management of AS as one of the treatment strategies available for structural valve dysfunction (SVD). However, some issues are associated with this approach, including coronary re-access and the risk of coronary obstruction. In this review, we provide essential concepts to properly select candidates for Redo-TAVR, updated data on clinical outcomes and complication rates, and current gaps in evidence.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry

BACKGROUND

Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown.

METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis-patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis-patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.