Isolated Redo Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Valve Replacement.
Aged
Aortic Valve
/ surgery
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ surgery
Bioprosthesis
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
/ methods
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Journal
The Annals of thoracic surgery
ISSN: 1552-6259
Titre abrégé: Ann Thorac Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 15030100R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
11
02
2020
revised:
25
07
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
pubmed:
2
11
2020
medline:
7
9
2021
entrez:
1
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinical outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) compared with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) are poorly understood. This study compared short- and midterm outcomes of patients undergoing isolated redo-SAVR vs VIV-TAVR after previous SAVR. A single-institutional review of the initial use of VIV-TAVR from 2012 to 2019 identified 273 patients undergoing VIV-TAVR (n = 187) or redo-SAVR (n = 86) after prior SAVR. Outcomes analysis included a univariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was higher for VIV-TAVR (6.3%; interquartile range [IQR], 3.6%-10.5%) vs redo-SAVR (4.2%; IQR, 2.4%-6.9%; P < .01). VIV-TAVR patients (76 years; IQR, 67.5-82.5 years) were older than redo-SAVR patients (64 years; IQR, 54-72; P < .01). Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR had similar early mortality (1.2% vs 1.6%, P = .92). Two redo-SAVR (2.3%) and 3 VIV-TAVR patients (1.6%) died 4.8 ± 0.5 years and 4.8 ± 1.5 months after discharge, respectively. Redo-SAVR had an increased stroke rate (7.0% vs 1.1%, P = .02). Postoperative mean valve gradients were similar between VIV-TAVR (14 mm Hg; IQR, 9-21 mm Hg) and redo-SAVR patients (12 mm Hg; IQR, 8-20 mm Hg; P = .08). Postprocedure transesophageal echocardiography showed at least mild aortic insufficiency for 24 VIV-TAVR patients (16%) and 2 redo-SAVR patients (2.9%) (P = .01). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 5.2% for the redo-SAVR patients and 28.5% for the VIV-TAVR patients (P = .07). After previous SAVR, redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR can both be performed with acceptable operative results. Despite treating a high-risk patient population, we found redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR both carry similar operative outcomes. Improved valve hemodynamics were observed in redo-SAVR patients compared with VIV-TAVR patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Clinical outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) compared with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) are poorly understood. This study compared short- and midterm outcomes of patients undergoing isolated redo-SAVR vs VIV-TAVR after previous SAVR.
METHODS
A single-institutional review of the initial use of VIV-TAVR from 2012 to 2019 identified 273 patients undergoing VIV-TAVR (n = 187) or redo-SAVR (n = 86) after prior SAVR. Outcomes analysis included a univariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
RESULTS
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was higher for VIV-TAVR (6.3%; interquartile range [IQR], 3.6%-10.5%) vs redo-SAVR (4.2%; IQR, 2.4%-6.9%; P < .01). VIV-TAVR patients (76 years; IQR, 67.5-82.5 years) were older than redo-SAVR patients (64 years; IQR, 54-72; P < .01). Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR had similar early mortality (1.2% vs 1.6%, P = .92). Two redo-SAVR (2.3%) and 3 VIV-TAVR patients (1.6%) died 4.8 ± 0.5 years and 4.8 ± 1.5 months after discharge, respectively. Redo-SAVR had an increased stroke rate (7.0% vs 1.1%, P = .02). Postoperative mean valve gradients were similar between VIV-TAVR (14 mm Hg; IQR, 9-21 mm Hg) and redo-SAVR patients (12 mm Hg; IQR, 8-20 mm Hg; P = .08). Postprocedure transesophageal echocardiography showed at least mild aortic insufficiency for 24 VIV-TAVR patients (16%) and 2 redo-SAVR patients (2.9%) (P = .01). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 5.2% for the redo-SAVR patients and 28.5% for the VIV-TAVR patients (P = .07).
CONCLUSIONS
After previous SAVR, redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR can both be performed with acceptable operative results. Despite treating a high-risk patient population, we found redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR both carry similar operative outcomes. Improved valve hemodynamics were observed in redo-SAVR patients compared with VIV-TAVR patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33129775
pii: S0003-4975(20)31748-3
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.08.048
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
539-545Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.