Multicenter experience with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with primary, native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
aortic valve replacement
cardiac catheterization/intervention
heart valve replacement
percutaneous
transapical
transcatheter
Journal
Journal of cardiac surgery
ISSN: 1540-8191
Titre abrégé: J Card Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8908809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
01
06
2022
accepted:
31
08
2022
pubmed:
1
12
2022
medline:
6
1
2023
entrez:
30
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear. A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation. ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury. Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers an alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement. The short- and intermediate-term outcomes after ViV TAVR in the real world are not entirely clear.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 121 ViV TAVR patients and 2200 patients undergoing primary native valve TAVR from 2012 to 2017 at six medical centers. The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ViV patients were more likely male, younger, prior coronary artery bypass graft, "hostile chest," and urgent. 30% of the patients had Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score <4%, 36.3% were 4%-8% and 33.8% were >8%. In both groups many patients had concomitant coronary artery disease. Median time to prosthetic failure was 9.6 years (interquartile range: 5.5-13.5 years). 82% of failed surgical valves were size 21, 23, or 25 mm. Access was 91% femoral. After ViV, 87% had none or trivial aortic regurgitation. Mean gradients were <20 mmHg in 54.6%, 20-29 mmHg in 30.6%, 30-39 mmHg in 8.3% and ≥40 mmHg in 5.87%. Median length of stay was 4 days. In-hospital mortality was 0%. 30-day mortality was 0% in ViV and 3.7% in native TAVR. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, postprocedure myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute kidney injury.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to native TAVR, ViV TAVR has similar peri-procedural morbidity with relatively high postprocedure mean gradients. A multidisciplinary approach will help ensure patients receive the ideal therapy in the setting of structural bioprosthetic valve degeneration.
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4382-4388Subventions
Organisme : The member centers of the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Iribarne A, Leavitt BJ, Robich MP, et al. Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: a multicenter analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158(6):1529-1538.
Holmes DR, Jr., Brennan JM, Rumsfeld JS, et al. Clinical outcomes at 1 year following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JAMA. 2015;313(10):1019-1028.
Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2477-2484.
Thourani VH, Jensen HA, Babaliaros V, et al. Outcomes in nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(3):785-792; discussion 793.
Tourmousoglou C, Rao V, Lalos S, Dougenis D. What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20(6):837-843.
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(7):1404-1411.
Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(18):2253-2262.
Webb JG, Murdoch DJ, Alu MC, et al. 3-year outcomes after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(21):2647-2655.
Tam DY, Dharma C, Rocha RV, et al. Transcatheter ViV versus redo surgical AVR for the management of failed biological prosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(6):765-774.
Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312(2):162-170.
Cheung AW, Gurvitch R, Ye J, et al. Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantations for a failed bioprosthesis: a case series. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141(3):711-715.
Gurvitch R, Cheung A, Ye J, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(21):2196-2209.
Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Dreysse S, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation after previous aortic valve replacement: clinical proof of the “valve-in-valve” concept. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(2):270-277.
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.
Simonato M, Webb J, Kornowski R, et al. Transcatheter replacement of failed bioprosthetic valves: large multicenter assessment of the effect of implantation depth on hemodynamics after aortic valve-in-valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(6):e003651.
Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Cohen DJ, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture to facilitate transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(5):1501-1508.
Chhatriwalla AK, Allen KB, Saxon JT, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture improves the hemodynamic results of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(7):e005216.
Maganti M, Rao V, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Scully HE, David TE. Redo valvular surgery in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87(2):521-525.
Leontyev S, Borger MA, Davierwala P, et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: early and late outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(4):1120-1126.
Leontyev S, Borger MA, Modi P, et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: influence of prosthetic valve endocarditis on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(1):99-105.
Naji P, Griffin BP, Sabik JF, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe bioprosthetic aortic valve stenosis undergoing redo surgical aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2015;132(21):1953-1960.
Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(4):1239-1247.
Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation. 2018;137(4):388-399.
Robich MP, Schiltz NK, Johnston DR, et al. Risk factors and outcomes of patients requiring a permanent pacemaker after aortic valve replacement in the United States. J Card Surg. 2016;31(8):476-485.
Deeb GM, Chetcuti SJ, Reardon MJ, et al. 1-year results in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with failed surgical bioprostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(10):1034-1044.
Landes U, Webb JG, De Backer O, et al. Repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement for transcatheter prosthesis dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(16):1882-1893.
Herrmann HC, Daneshvar SA, Fonarow GC, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(22):2701-2711.