Hutt E, Mehra N, Desai MY. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2022;
20:911-918. [PMID:
36433699 DOI:
10.1080/14779072.2022.2153118]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines.
AREAS COVERED
This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient.
EXPERT OPINION
With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.
Collapse