Five-Year Outcomes of Patients With Mitral Structural Valve Deterioration Treated With Transcatheter Valve in Valve Implantation – A Single Center Prospective Registry

Redo aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: a UK propensity-matched analysis

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicenter UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients underwent valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. The mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR versus 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including intra-aortic balloon pump support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p<0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve TAVI provides better early outcomes as opposed to redo-AVR, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from the hospital.

Transseptal versus Transapical Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement has become a useful alternative for patients with failed mitral prosthesis or annuloplasty rings who are deemed high risk for re-do surgery. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes following transseptal (TS) and transapical (TA) approaches in transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring implantation (TMViV/R) METHODS: Electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched through November 2022. Both clinical trials and observational studies comparing patients undergoing TS and TA TMViV/R were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were 30-day and one-year mortality. Post-operative stroke, left ventricle outlet tract (LVOT) obstruction, mitral valve pressure gradient (MVPG), bleeding, and length of hospital stay were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were included comparing patients undergoing TS (n=1875) and TA (n=1120) TMViV/R. The TS group had significantly lower 30-day mortality (OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.47, 0.94]; P=0.02, I²= 0%) and lower one-year mortality risk group (HR: 0.79; 95% CI [0.63, 0.99]; P=0.04, I²= 0%) compared to the TA group. The TS group had consistent shorter in-hospital stay (MD= -3.79; 95% CI [-5.23, -2.34] days; p<0.0001, I²= 75%). Post-operative stroke, bleeding and LVOT obstruction tended to be lower in the TS but the results did not reach statistical significance. Post-operative MVPG was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The TS approach has lower early mortality, lower one-year death hazard, shorter in-hospital stay, and a trend toward lower complication rates when compared to TA TMViV/R. Further controlled trials may support the evidence and provide long-term outcomes.

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement versus redo surgery for mitral prosthesis failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery. TMVR compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) in patients with mitral prosthesis failure remains limited. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the outcomes of TMVR (including valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring) versus redo surgery for mitral prosthesis failure.

Methods

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then we extracted data. We compared the outcomes of TMVR and redo SMVR for mitral prosthesis failure in terms of the in-hospital mortality, stroke, renal dysfunction, vascular complication, pacemaker implantation, exploration for bleeding, paravalvular leak, mean mitral valve gradient, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality.

Results

Nine retrospective cohort studies and a total of 3,038 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with redo SMVR for mitral prosthesis failure, TMVR was associated with lower in-hospital mortality [odds ratios (OR): 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.64; P < 0.001], stroke (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.29-0.67; P = 0.0001), renal dysfunction (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; P = 0.0003), vascular complication (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.78; P = 0.004), pacemaker implantation (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.15-0.36; P < 0.00001), and exploration for bleeding (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.96; P = 0.04). Conversely, redo SMVR had lower paravalvular leak (OR: 22.12; 95% CI: 2.81-174.16; P = 0.003). There was no difference in mean mitral valve gradient (MD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.55; P = 0.87), 30-day mortality (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.36-1.17; P = 0.15), and 1-year mortality (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.63-1.45; P = 0.84).

Conclusion

In patients with mitral prosthesis failure, TMVR is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and lower occurrence of postoperative complications, except for paravalvular leak. TMVR offers a viable alternative to the conventional redo surgery in selected patients.