RESUMEN

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

RESUMEN

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

On July 31, 2023, the Trifecta valve was withdrawn from the market after concerns regarding early (≤5 years) structural valve deterioration (SVD), mainly as aortic regurgitation (AR). Our aim was to determine the timing, mechanism, and impact of bioprosthetic SVD in patients who underwent redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) with either redo-SAVR or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Trifecta versus other bioprosthetic valves. Patients who underwent redo-AVR for SVD at our institution were categorized into 2 groups based on the valve type: Trifecta versus non-Trifecta. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare mortality. A total of 171 patients were included; 58 (34%) had previous SAVR with a Trifecta valve and 113 (66%) with non-Trifecta valve. A total of 103 patients (60%) underwent valve-in-valve TAVR and 68 redo-SAVR (40%). The age, gender, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between Trifecta and non-Trifecta groups. In patients with bioprosthetic valves requiring redo-AVR, Trifecta valves had an earlier onset of greater than moderate AR (4.5 vs 11.9 years, p <0.001) and earlier time to redo-AVR (5.5 vs 12 years, p <0.001). AR was more common as the mechanism of SVD in Trifecta versus non-Trifecta valves (55.2% vs 30.1%, p = 0.006). All-cause adjusted mortality from index SAVR was higher in the Trifecta than in non-Trifecta group (hazard ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 11.5, p = 0.007). In conclusion, compared with non-Trifecta valves, Trifecta valves exhibit early SVD primarily as AR and progress rapidly to significant SVD requiring redo-AVR. Mortality is significantly higher with Trifecta than in non-Trifecta valves, potentially impacting the results of SAVR versus TAVR studies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines. AREAS COVERED: This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient. EXPERT OPINION: With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial. METHODS: A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%). CONCLUSION: Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate real-world outcomes of patients with degenerated biological aortic valve prostheses who had undergone valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) or reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients who had undergone ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR for a degenerated biological aortic valve prosthesis in the Netherlands between January 2014 and December 2018 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients with a prior homograft, active endocarditis or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis were excluded. Patients were matched using the propensity score. The primary endpoint was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality at different time points, in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from the Netherlands Heart Registration. RESULTS: From 16 cardiac centres, 653 patients were included in the study (374 ViV-TAVI and 279 redo-SAVR). European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I) was higher in ViV-TAVI patients (19.4, interquartile range (IQR) 13.3-27.9 vs 13.8, IQR 8.3-21.9, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching, 165 patients were matched with acceptable covariate balance. In the matched cohorts, the primary endpoint was not significantly different for ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.02). Procedural, 30-day and 1­year all-cause mortality rates, incidence of in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year were also similar between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR have similar mortality and morbidity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Although the safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement has improved, coronary ostium obstruction remains a significant complication, with chimney stenting a possible solution to circumvent this complication. In this case, we discuss the failure of a chimney stent in a case of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement resulting in cardiogenic shock. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic (BP) valves have been increasingly used for aortic valve replacement over the last decade. Due to their limited durability, patients presenting with failed BP valves are rising. Valve in Valve - Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (ViV-TAVI) emerged as an alternative to the gold standard redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (redo-SAVR). However, the utility of ViV-TAVI is poorly understood. METHODS: A systematic electronic search of the scientific literature was done in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only studies which compared the safety and efficacy of ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR head to head in failed BP valves were included. RESULTS: Six observational studies were eligible and included 594 patients, of whom 255 underwent ViV- TAVI and 339 underwent redo-SAVR. There was no significant difference between ViV-TAVI and redo- SAVR for procedural, 30 day and 1 year mortality rates. ViV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (OR: 0.43, CI: 0.21-0.89; P = 0.02) and a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR: 5.45, CI: 0.94-31.58; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference for stroke, major bleeding, vascular complications and postprocedural aortic valvular gradients more than 20 mm-hg. CONCLUSION: Our results reiterate the safety and feasibility of ViV-TAVI for failed aortic BP valves in patients deemed to be at high risk for surgery. VIV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation with a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak.

Asunto(s)