Key result
ViV TAVR in small bioprostheses linked to ~248% higher risk of major events vs larger valves.
Why the study?
Data on the prognostic impact of failed surgical bioprosthetic size and subsequent prosthesis-patient mismatch on midterm outcomes of ViV TAVR remain limited.
Does valve-in-valve TAVR in small surgical bioprostheses (≤20 mm) compared to larger bioprostheses increase the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with degenerated surgical bioprostheses?
Cohort (n=367)
Does valve-in-valve TAVR in small surgical bioprostheses (≤20 mm) compared to larger bioprostheses increase the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with degenerated surgical bioprostheses?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Valve-in-valve TAVR for small surgical bioprostheses (≤20 mm) is associated with worse midterm clinical outcomes, driven by a higher incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.
BACKGROUND: Data on the prognostic impact of failed surgical bioprosthetic size following valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of failed bioprosthetic size and subsequent prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on midterm outcomes of ViV TAVR. METHODS: We analyzed patients who underwent ViV TAVR for degenerated surgical bioprostheses in the OCEAN-TAVI (Optimized transCathEter vAlvular iNtervention-transcatheter aortic valve implantation) registry. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the true internal diameter (ID) of bioprostheses: the small bioprosthesis (SB) group (ID ≤20 mm) and the non-small bioprosthesis (NB) group (ID >20 mm). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization at 3 years. Factors associated with severe measured PPM were also examined. RESULTS: Among 367 consecutive patients undergoing ViV TAVR (244 patients in the SB group vs 123 patients in the NB group), 30-day mortality was 0.5%. Severe PPM occurred in 16.9% of the entire cohort and was more prevalent in the SB group (21.3% in the SB group vs 8.3% in the NB group; P = 0.001). The SB group had a higher risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization at 3 years (19.1% in the SB group vs 9.8% in the NB group; adjusted HR: 3.48; 95% CI: 1.11-10.87). The SB patients with severe PPM had the highest risk of the primary outcome at 3 years (SB with PPM 39.2% vs NB without PPM 11.0%; adjusted HR: 6.65 [95% CI: 1.95-22.71] compared with the NB group without PPM). Factors associated with severe PPM included larger body surface area, balloon-expandable valve implantation, and true ID ≤20 mm. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR for small surgical bioprostheses was associated with worse clinical outcome, particularly in those with severe PPM. (Optimized Transcatheter Valvular Intervention-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [OCEAN-TAVI]; UMIN000020423).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamioka et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Failed surgical bioprostheses (n=367). Valve-in-valve TAVR for small bioprostheses (ID ≤20 mm) vs. Valve-in-valve TAVR for non-small bioprostheses (ID >20 mm) was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization at 3 years (adjusted HR 3.48, 95% CI 1.11-10.87). ViV TAVR for small bioprostheses (≤20 mm) increased 3-year cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared to larger valves (19.1% vs 9.8%; adjusted HR 3.48, 95% CI 1.11-10.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: