Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses.

Landes, Uri; Sathananthan, Janarthanan; Witberg, Guy; De Backer, Ole; Sondergaard, Lars; Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed; Holzhey, David; Kim, Won-Keun; Hamm, Christian; Buzzatti, Nicola; Montorfano, Matteo; Ludwig, Sebastian; Conradi, Lenard; Seiffert, Moritz; Guerrero, Mayra; El Sabbagh, Abdallah; Rodés-Cabau, Josep; Guimaraes, Leonardo; Codner, Pablo; Okuno, Taishi; ... (2021). Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 77(1), pp. 1-14. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.053

[img] Text
Transcatheter_REplacement_of_Transcatheter.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs).

METHODS

Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

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

UniBE Contributor:

Okuno, Taishi, Pilgrim, Thomas

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0735-1097

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Nadia Biscozzo

Date Deposited:

21 Jan 2022 11:40

Last Modified:

05 Dec 2022 16:00

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.053

PubMed ID:

33413929

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Redo-TAVR TAVR surgical aortic valve transcatheter aortic valve valve-in-valve

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/163310

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/163310

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback