Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 71(02): 094-100
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735476
Original Cardiovascular

Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes

Amila Cizmic‡   *
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Elmar Kuhn‡   *
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Kaveh Eghbalzadeh 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Carolyn Weber 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Parwis Baradaran Rahmanian
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Matti Adam
2   Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Victor Mauri
2   Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Tanja Rudolph
3   Clinic for General and Interventional Cardiology/Angiology, Heart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Stephan Baldus
2   Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Thorsten Wahlers
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart Center Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR).

Methods Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study.

Results ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusion ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

Keywords

valve-in-valve - redo surgery - deteriorated aortic valve bioprosthesis - cardiac surgery - early outcomes

Authors' Contribution

Since our author list overcomes the limit of seven authors per manuscript, we would like to elaborate on the individual authors' contribution. A.C. and E.K. have contributed equally to the writing of the manuscript. K.E., C.W., and V.M. did the literature search as well as data extraction. P.B.R. and M.A. made the statistical interpretation of data. T.R., S.B., and T.W. were responsible for the critical revision of the manuscript.


* Both authors contributed equally to the work.




Publication History

Received: 04 December 2020

Accepted: 27 May 2021

Article published online:
14 September 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Kaneko T, Vassileva CM, Englum B. et al. Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100 (04) 1298-1304 , discussion 1304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Silaschi M, Wendler O, Seiffert M. et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017; 24 (01) 63-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation 2012; 126 (19) 2335-2344
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Dvir D, Leipsic J, Blanke P. et al. Coronary obstruction in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: preprocedural evaluation, device selection, protection, and treatment. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8 (01) e002079
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Erlebach M, Wottke M, Deutsch MA. et al. Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7 (09) 1494-1500
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P. et al; Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42 (05) S45-S60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV. et al; Acute Kidney Injury Network. Acute kidney injury network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 2007; 11 (02) R31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Lopez-Delgado JC, Esteve F, Torrado H. et al. Influence of acute kidney injury on short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: risk factors and prognostic value of a modified RIFLE classification. Crit Care 2013; 17 (06) R293
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Coylewright M, Mack MJ, Holmes Jr DR, O'Gara PT. A call for an evidence-based approach to the Heart Team for patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65 (14) 1472-1480
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A. et al. Intermediate-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a novel RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis. J Thorac Dis 2019; 11 (07) 3039-3046
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Tam DY, Vo TX, Wijeysundera HC, Dvir D, Friedrich JO, Fremes SE. Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 92 (07) 1404-1411
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sedeek AF, Greason KL, Sandhu GS, Dearani JA, Holmes Jr DR, Schaff HV. Transcatheter Valve-in-valve vs surgical replacement of failing stented aortic biological valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2019; 108 (02) 424-430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Abdel-Wahab M, Mehilli J, Frerker C. et al; CHOICE investigators. Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 311 (15) 1503-1514
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M. et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart 2018; 104 (10) 828-834
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Saxon JT, Allen KB, Cohen DJ, Chhatriwalla AK. Bioprosthetic valve fracture during valve-in-valve TAVR: bench to bedside. Interv Cardiol (Lond) 2018; 13 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM. et al. The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 106 (01) 14-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hirji SA, Percy ED, Zogg CK. et al. Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (29) 2747-2755
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar