Outcomes of Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.


Journal

The American journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1879-1913
Titre abrégé: Am J Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0207277

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 10 09 2023
revised: 23 11 2023
accepted: 27 12 2023
medline: 18 1 2024
pubmed: 18 1 2024
entrez: 17 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Structural valve degeneration (SVD) is increasingly seen given the higher rates of bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) usage for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is an attractive alternate for patients who are otherwise at high risk for reoperative surgery. We compared patients undergoing VIV-TAVR and native-valve TAVR through a retrospective analysis of our institutional TVT database from 2013 to 2022. Patients undergoing either a native-valve TAVR or VIV-TAVR were included. VIV-TAVR was defined as TAVR in previous SAVR patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to obtain survival estimates. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for the multivariable analysis of mortality. A total of 3532 patients underwent TAVR of which 198 (5.6%) underwent VIV-TAVR. Patients in the VIV-TAVR cohort were younger than native-valve TAVR patients (79.5 vs. 84 years, p<0.001) with comparable number of women and a higher STS risk score (6.28 vs 4.46, p<0.001). The VIV-TAVR cohort had a higher incidence of major vascular complications (2.5% vs. 0.8%, p=0.008) but less permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement (2.5% vs. 8.1%, p=0.004). The incidence of stroke was comparable between the groups (VIV-TAVR: 2.5% vs. Native-TAVR: 2.4%, p=0.911). The 30-day readmission rates (VIV-TAVR: 7.1% vs. Native-TAVR: 9%, p=0.348) as well as the in-hospital (VIV-TAVR: 2% vs. Native-TAVR: 1.4%, p=0.46) and overall (VIV-TAVR: 26.3% vs. Native-TAVR: 30.8%, p=0.18) mortality at a follow-up of 1.8 years (0.83-3.5) were comparable between the groups. Survival estimates were comparable between the groups (Log rank p=0.27). On multivariable cox regression analysis, VIV-TAVR was associated with decreased hazards of death (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.68 (0.5-0.9), p=0.02). In conclusion, ViV-TAVR is a feasible and safe strategy for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. There may be potentially higher short-term morbidity with VIV-TAVR with no overt impact on survival.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38232811
pii: S0002-9149(24)00038-9
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.12.061
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest All the authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. IS receives institutional research support from Abbott, Atricure, Artivion, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Medtronic, Terumo Aortic. As mentioned above, these conflicts are unrelated to this article.

Auteurs

Danial Ahmad (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Sarah Yousef (S)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Dustin Kliner (D)

Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

James A Brown (JA)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Derek Serna-Gallegos (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Catalin Toma (C)

Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Amber Makani (A)

Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

David West (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Yisi Wang (Y)

Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Floyd W Thoma (FW)

Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Ibrahim Sultan (I)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Electronic address: sultani@upmc.edu.

Classifications MeSH