Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bi-National Outcomes of Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve

BACKGROUND

Implantation of bioprosthetic valves is more common as the population ages and there is a shift towards implanting bioprosthetic aortic valves in an increasingly younger surgical population. Bioprosthetic heart valve insertion, however, carries the long-term risk of valve failure through structural valve degeneration. Re-operative surgical aortic valve replacement has historically been the only definitive management option for patients with prosthetic valve dysfunction, however, data on the short- and long-term outcomes following re-operative surgery in Australia and New Zealand is limited.

METHOD

Data on all patients who underwent redo aortic valve surgery, over a 20-year period (up to 2021) was obtained from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiothoracic Surgery Registry.

RESULTS

A total of 1,199 patients (770 males; 64.2% and 429 females; 35.8%) were included in the overall analysis. The 30-day mortality was 6.4% with operative urgency status the most important risk factor for peri-operative mortality. The long-term survival rate of 1,145 patients was 90.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.8%-92.3%), 77% (95% CI 73.9%-80.2%) and 57.2% (95% CI 55.2%-62.8%) at 1-, 5- and 10-years post-procedure, respectively, with a median survival of 12.7 years. Pre-existing chronic kidney disease was strongly associated with poorer long-term survival. For patients under 70 years of age the 1-, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 92.9% (95% CI 90.9%-95.1%), 83.6% (95% CI 80.1%-87.3%) and 73.1% (95% CI 67.4%-79.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this registry study indicate that in Australia and New Zealand, a repeat surgical aortic valve replacement can result in a relatively low mortality rate, serving as a reference point for medical procedures in these regions.

Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedures: Challenges and Future Directions

Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed for the treatment of surgical bioprosthetic valve failure in patients at intermediate to high surgical risk. Although ViV procedures offer indisputable benefits in terms of procedural time, in-hospital length of stay, and avoidance of surgical complications, they also present unique challenges. Growing awareness of the technical difficulties and potential threats associated with ViV procedures mandates careful preprocedural planning. This review article offers an overview of the current state-of-the-art ViV procedures, with focus on patient and device selection, procedural planning, potential complications, and long-term outcomes. Finally, it discusses current research efforts and future directions aimed at improving ViV procedural success and patient outcomes.

Emergency and Prophylactic Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Small Surgical Bioprosthesis: A Report of Four Cases

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is widely implemented as a rescue device in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Although prophylactic VA-ECMO (pECMO) in TAVI is preferable to emergency VA-ECMO (eECMO) in terms of overall survival, there is currently no consensus on the introduction criteria for pECMO. Here, we report four cases of eECMO and pECMO performed in valve-in-valve TAVI (ViV-TAVI) with a small surgical bioprosthesis to consider the validity of the current pECMO indications. In the two cases that were placed on eECMO, a 19 mm and 21 mm Carpentier-Edwards perimount bioprosthesis (CEP), a stented bioprosthetic valve, were sewn. After the transcatheter heart valve (THV) passed through the surgical aortic valve, acute aortic regurgitation developed, thus leading to hemodynamic instability requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and therefore VA-ECMO was introduced. In the two cases using pECMO, 19 mm of CEP were sewn, and the THV was safely placed once MCS had been established. In all four cases, the patients were removed from VA-ECMO in the operating room following ViV-TAVI. The eECMO patients were discharged on postoperative days 12 and 20, while the pECMO patients were discharged on postoperative days 7 and 9, respectively. From our experience and based on the findings of some published reviews, ViV-TAVI with a small surgical bioprosthesis is considered to belong to a high-risk patient group demonstrating hemodynamic instability. The introduction of pECMO for such cases may therefore be an effective option for obtaining a better prognosis.

Contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients referred for a transcatheter approach

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to examine which patients referred to our structural valve clinic for potential transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are receiving surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) whether due to unsuitable anatomy for TAVR versus other reasons.

METHODS

Individuals referred for TAVR from January 2019 to March 2022, who ultimately underwent SAVR were examined, retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 surgical groups: TAVR was technically unsuitable (SAVR-TU) and those in which TAVR was technically feasible (SAVR-TF).

RESULTS

215 patients referred for TAVR underwent SAVR with 61 (28.4%) patients in the SAVR-TU group and 154 (71.6%) in the SAVR-TF group. The SAVR-TU group were more commonly female (52.5% vs 23.4%, p < 0.0001), had a higher incidence of stroke at baseline (9.8% vs 2.0%, p = 0.017) were frailer (5-m gait 5.2 s vs 4.7 s, p = 0.0035), and had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (2.2 vs 1.7, p = 0.04). In the SAVR-TU group, unsuitability for TAVR was due to inadequate aortic root anatomy (86.9%), and poor peripheral access (6.6%). In the SAVR-TF group, the most common reasons for SAVR referral were concomitant coronary artery disease (42.9%), bicuspid aortic valve disease (16.9%), and concomitant aortic aneurysm (10.4%). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 1.4% with no difference between both groups. One-year survival was 96.7%.

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher trend of aortic stenosis being treated with TAVR, higher risk patients unsuitable for TAVR can have SAVR with excellent outcomes. Moreover, patients with AS and concomitant other pathology should be evaluated for cardiac surgery.

A case of hybrid robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

We report a hybrid procedure of robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting and transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for left main disease and prosthetic aortic valve stenosis. Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting using a left internal mammary artery graft was preferred to percutaneous coronary intervention because of the complex anatomy of the coronary lesion and concerns about dual antiplatelet therapy tolerance. This was followed by a valve-in-valve procedure five days later, allowing the patient to be discharged the next day. This innovative, less invasive approach demonstrates the feasibility and potential for early recovery in appropriately selected patients with complex coronary and aortic valve disease.

Learning objective

Hybrid robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a feasible and less invasive approach for appropriately selected patients with complex coronary and aortic valve disease who are not good candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention or conventional CABG and surgical AVR.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Lifetime Management of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using mechanical valves has been the preferred treatment for younger patients, but bioprosthetic valves are gaining favour to avoid anticoagulation with warfarin. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in recent years for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in intermediate- and low-risk patients as an alternative to SAVR. The longer life expectancy of these groups of patients might exceed the durability of the TAVR or SAVR bioprosthetic valves. Therefore, many patients need 2 or even 3 interventions during their lifetime. Because it has important implications on the feasibility of subsequent procedures, the decision between opting for SAVR or TAVR as the primary procedure requires thorough consideration by the heart team, incorporating patient preferences, clinical indicators, and anatomic aspects. If TAVR is favoured initially, selecting the valve type and determining the implantation level should be conducted, aiming for positive outcomes in the index intervention and keeping in mind the potential for subsequent TAVR-in-TAVR procedures. When SAVR is selected as the primary procedure, the operator must make choices regarding the valve type and the potential need for aortic root enlargement, with the intention of facilitating future valve-in-valve interventions. This narrative review examines the existing evidence concerning the lifelong management of severe aortic stenosis, delving into available treatment strategies, particularly emphasising the initial procedure's selection and its impact on subsequent interventions.

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.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of bioprosthetic (BV) versus mechanical valves (MV) on long-term outcomes in 50- to 70-year-old aortic stenosis (AS) patients. A literature search for articles published until April 2023 yielded 13 eligible studies, with 15,320 patients divided into BV (n = 7,320) and MV (n = 8,000) cohorts. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42021278777). MV demonstrated a favorable hazard ratio (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.25, I2 = 60%) and higher survival rates at 5 (OR:1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.25, I2 = 42%) and 10 years (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.23, I2 = 0%). At 15 years, stroke incidence was comparable (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.98-1.27, I2 = 4%). BV showed lower bleeding events (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.18-2.46, I2 = 88%), but MV replacement showed lower reoperation incidence (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.42, I2 = 85%). MV appears favorable for the long-term approach in AS management compared to BV.

Survival and Recurrence of Endocarditis following Mechanical vs. Biological Aortic Valve Replacement for Endocarditis in Patients Aged 40 to 65 Years: Data from the INFECT-Registry

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years.

METHODS

This was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test.

RESULTS

Overall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (p < 0.0001). Long-term survival was significantly higher among patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis than those receiving a biological prosthesis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.546, 95% CI: 0.322-0.926, p = 0.025). Mechanical prostheses were associated with significantly less recurrent endocarditis after AVR than biological prostheses (HR 0.268, 95%CI: 0.077-0.933, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged patients.

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.

The Evolving Role of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valvular Procedures

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; it was initially intended for high-risk patients and has now expanded its use to patients of all risk groups. While TAVR has demonstrated promising outcomes in diverse patient populations, uncertainties persist regarding its long-term durability and potential complications, raising the issue of the ideal lifetime management strategy for patients with AS. Therefore, SAVR continues to play an important role in clinical practice, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies, those with complex aortic anatomy who are unsuitable for TAVR, and those requiring concomitant surgical procedures. The choice between TAVR and SAVR warrants personalized decision-making, considering patient characteristics, comorbidities, anatomical considerations, and overall life expectancy. A multidisciplinary approach involving an experienced heart team is crucial in the preoperative evaluation process. In this review, we aimed to explore the current role of surgical management in addressing aortic valve stenosis amidst the expanding utilization of less invasive transcatheter procedures.