Aortic valve versus root surgery after failed transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus root replacement after transcatheter AVR (TAVR) explantation because they remain unknown.

METHODS

From November 2009 to September 2020, data from the EXPLANT-TAVR International Registry of patients who underwent TAVR explant were retrospectively reviewed, divided by AVR versus root replacement. After excluding explants performed during the same admission as the initial TAVR and concomitant procedures involving the other valves, 168 AVR cases were compared with 28 root replacements, and outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Among 196 patients (mean age, 73.5 ± 9.9 years) who had primary aortic valve intervention at TAVR explant, the median time from TAVR to surgical explant was 11.2 months (interquartile range, 4.4-32.9 months). Indications for explant were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with AVR, patients requiring root replacement had fewer comorbidities but more unfavorable anatomy for redo TAVR (52.6% vs 26.4%; P = .032), fewer urgent/emergency cases (32.1% vs 58.3%; P = .013), longer median interval from index TAVR to TAVR explant (17.6 vs 9.9 months; P = .047), and more concomitant ascending aortic replacement (58.8% vs 14.0%; P < .001). Median follow-up was 6.9 months (interquartile range, 1.4-21.6 months) after TAVR explant and 97.4% complete. Overall survival at follow-up was 81.2% with no differences between groups (log rank P = .54). In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates and stroke rates were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the EXPLANT-TAVR Registry, AVR and root replacement groups had different clinical characteristics, but no differences in short-term mortality and morbidities. Further investigations are necessary to identify patients at risk of root replacement in TAVR explant.

Surgical Explantation After TAVR Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANT-TAVR International Registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics, mechanisms of failure, and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) explantation.

BACKGROUND

Surgical explantation following TAVR may be required for structural valve degeneration, paravalvular leak, infection, or other reasons. However, in-depth data on indications and outcomes are lacking.

METHODS

Data from a multicenter, international registry (EXPLANT-TAVR) of patients who underwent TAVR explantation were reviewed retrospectively. Explantations performed during the same admission as initial TAVR were excluded. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated. Median follow-up duration was 6.7 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0-18.8 months) after TAVR explantation and was 97.7% complete at 30 days and 86.1% complete at 1 year.

RESULTS

From November 2009 to September 2020, 269 patients across 42 centers with a mean age of 72.7 ± 10.4 years underwent TAVR explantation. About one quarter (25.9%) were deemed low surgical risk at index TAVR, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk at TAVR explantation was 5.6% (IQR: 3.2%-9.6%). The median time to explantation was 11.5 months (IQR: 4.0-32.4 months). Balloon-expandable and self-expanding or mechanically expandable valves accounted for 50.9% and 49.1%, respectively. Indications for explantation included endocarditis (43.1%), structural valve degeneration (20.1%), paravalvular leak (18.2%), and prosthesis-patient mismatch (10.8%). Redo TAVR was not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy in 26.8% of patients. Urgent or emergency cases were performed in 53.1% of patients, aortic root replacement in 13.4%, and 54.6% had concomitant cardiac procedures. Overall survival at last follow-up was 76.1%. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 11.9%, 13.1%, and 28.5%, respectively, and stroke rates were 5.9%, 8.6%, and 18.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The EXPLANT-TAVR registry reveals that surgical risks associated with TAVR explantation are not negligible and should be taken into consideration in the lifetime management of aortic stenosis.