Aortic Valved Homograft Degeneration: Surgical or Transcatheter Approach for Repeat Aortic Valve Replacement?
Structural valve deterioration
aortic valved allograft
homograft
homograft degeneration
repeat aortic valve replacement
valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Journal
European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery
ISSN: 1873-734X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8804069
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jul 2024
22 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
07
04
2024
revised:
26
06
2024
accepted:
19
07
2024
medline:
22
7
2024
pubmed:
22
7
2024
entrez:
22
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Aortic valved allografts (homografts) have been used alternatively to mechanical or biological valve prostheses in expectation of better durability; however, homograft valves do degenerate, and redo procedures have proven challenging due to heavy wall calcification. The aim of the study was to compare the outcome of open surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in degenerated homografts. Between 1993 and 2022, 81 patients underwent repeat aortic valve procedures having previously received an aortic homograft. The redo had become necessary due to regurgitation in 85% and stenosis in 15%. Sixty-five percent underwent open surgery, 35% TAVR. Isolated SAVR was possible in 79% and root procedures were necessary in 21%. TAVR was performed in 79% via transfemoral and 21% via transapical access. Median prosthetic valve size was 23 (22.3-23.2) mm in the SAVR and 26 (25.2-26.9) in the TAVR group.30-day mortality was 0% in the TAVR and 7% in the SAVR group (p=n.s.). TAVR showed a significantly better outcome concerning prolonged ventilation (0 vs. 21%, p=0.013) as well as ICU (1 vs. 2 days; p<0.001) and in-hospital stay (10.5 vs. 13 days; p=0.028). 5-year survival was statistically comparable between groups and no severe leakage was observed. SAVR following structural homograft degeneration shows acceptable results, but the perioperative risk remains substantial and poorly predictable. TAVR presents a reasonable and more easily accessible alternative and is associated with good short- and midterm results. In the absence of relevant contraindications, TAVR is presently the preferred treatment option for these patients at our center.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39037934
pii: 7717981
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae280
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.