Why the study?
The study sought to compare outcomes between valve-in-valve and native valve TAVI procedures.
Does valve-in-valve TAVI have comparable clinical outcomes to native valve TAVI in high-risk patients?
Does valve-in-valve TAVI have comparable clinical outcomes to native valve TAVI in high-risk patients?
Valve-in-valve TAVI appears to be an acceptable approach with comparable clinical outcomes to native valve TAVI in patients not suitable for redo surgery.
Background: In high-risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. To compare outcomes of ViV and native valve (NV) TAVI procedures. Methods: 19 mm) valve group (LVG). Conclusions: Analyzing a limited group (n = 34) of ViV-TAVI procedures out of 1206 TAVIs done at a single institution, ViV-TAVI appeared to be an acceptable approach in patients not deemed appropriate candidates for redo valve replacement surgery. Clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVI were comparable to TAVI for native valve stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bartos et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: