Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves.

Bleiziffer, Sabine; Simonato, Matheus; Webb, John G; Rodés-Cabau, Josep; Pibarot, Philippe; Kornowski, Ran; Windecker, Stephan; Erlebach, Magdalena; Duncan, Alison; Seiffert, Moritz; Unbehaun, Axel; Frerker, Christian; Conzelmann, Lars; Wijeysundera, Harindra; Kim, Won-Keun; Montorfano, Matteo; Latib, Azeem; Tchetche, Didier; Allali, Abdelhakim; Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed; ... (2020). Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves. European Heart Journal, 41(29), pp. 2731-2742. Oxford University Press 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa544

[img] Text
Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

AIMS

Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2-12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01-1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11-1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis-patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31-14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36-10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26-8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.78)].

CONCLUSIONS

The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology

UniBE Contributor:

Windecker, Stephan and Stortecky, Stefan

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0195-668X

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Language:

English

Submitter:

Nadia Biscozzo

Date Deposited:

18 Nov 2020 10:31

Last Modified:

18 Nov 2020 10:31

Publisher DOI:

10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa544

PubMed ID:

32592401

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Aortic valve-in-valve Reintervention SAPIEN valve Severe prosthesis–patient mismatch TAVR

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.147457

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/147457

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback