Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve.
Aortic bioprosthesis
Redo-surgery
Structural valve deterioration
Transcatheter valve-in-valve
Journal
Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team
ISSN: 2474-8714
Titre abrégé: Struct Heart
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101743256
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
07
03
2022
revised:
04
09
2022
accepted:
16
09
2022
medline:
8
6
2023
pubmed:
8
6
2023
entrez:
8
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure. We retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures. ViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%, ViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
This study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures.
Results
UNASSIGNED
ViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%,
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
ViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37288124
doi: 10.1016/j.shj.2022.100106
pii: S2474-8706(22)01901-7
pmc: PMC10242565
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100106Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 2;77(4):450-500
pubmed: 33342587
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jan 25;14(2):211-220
pubmed: 33478639
JAMA. 2014 Jul;312(2):162-70
pubmed: 25005653
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jul 12;14(13):1466-1477
pubmed: 34238557
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Jan 1;22(1):11-20
pubmed: 32995865
Heart. 2018 May;104(10):828-834
pubmed: 29352008
J Thorac Dis. 2015 Sep;7(9):1494-500
pubmed: 26543594
Eur Heart J. 2021 May 14;42(19):1825-1857
pubmed: 33871579
Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 1;41(29):2747-2755
pubmed: 32445575
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 4;72(22):2701-2711
pubmed: 30257798
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 30;64(13):1323-34
pubmed: 25257633
Am J Cardiol. 2020 May 1;125(9):1378-1384
pubmed: 32139158
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 4;76(5):489-499
pubmed: 32731926
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Nov;158(5):1317-1328.e1
pubmed: 30857820
Am J Cardiol. 2021 May 1;146:74-81
pubmed: 33529615
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;300:80-86
pubmed: 31740140
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012 Nov;42(5):S45-60
pubmed: 23026738
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2019 Mar;34(2):132-139
pubmed: 30562183
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 5;77(1):1-14
pubmed: 33413929
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Jul 15;106(2):255-60
pubmed: 20599012
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Jun;17(6):589-90
pubmed: 27143783
Heart. 2018 Aug;104(16):1323-1332
pubmed: 29735584
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 23;13(6):765-774
pubmed: 31954671
Eur Heart J. 2022 Feb 12;43(7):561-632
pubmed: 34453165
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017 Mar;32(2):123-129
pubmed: 28067715
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009 Sep;22(9):975-1014; quiz 1082-4
pubmed: 19733789