Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67(04): 243-250
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1668135
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Meta-analysis of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Hisato Takagi
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, Shizuoka, Japan
,
Shohei Mitta
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, Shizuoka, Japan
,
Tomo Ando
2  Department of Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 February 2018

02 July 2018

Publication Date:
16 August 2018 (online)

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (VIV-TAVI) is associated with better survival than redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses, and we performed a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Methods To identify all comparative studies of VIV-TAVI versus redo SAVR; MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2017. For each study, data regarding all-cause mortality in both the VIV-TAVI and redo SAVR groups were used to generate odds ratios (ORs). To assess selection bias, we generated ORs and (standardized) mean differences (MDs) for baseline characteristics. Study-specific estimates were combined in the random-effects model.

Results Of 446 potentially relevant articles screened initially, 6 reports of retrospective comparative studies enrolling a total of 498 patients were identified. Pooled analyses of baseline characteristics demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the proportion of women, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients with coronary artery disease, and patients with baseline New York Heart Association functional class of ≥III; baseline ejection fraction; and predicted mortality between the VIV-TAVI and redo SAVR groups. Patients in the VIV-TAVI group, however, were significantly older (MD, 4.20 years) and had undergone prior coronary artery bypass grafting more frequently (OR, 2.19) than those in the redo SAVR group. Main pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in early (30 days or in-hospital) (OR, 0.91; p = 0.83) and midterm (180 days–3 years) all-cause mortalities (OR, 1.42; p = 0.21) between the VIV-TAVI and redo SAVR groups.

Conclusion In patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses, especially elderly or high-risk patients, VIV-TAVI could be a safe, feasible alternative to redo SAVR. The lack of randomized data and differences in baseline characteristics in the present analysis emphasize the need for prospective randomized trials.