Why the study?
Patients with failed surgical aortic bioprostheses and candidates for VIV-TAVR are increasing, prompting evaluation of its efficacy, safety, and long-term survival versus NV-TAVR.
Does VIV-TAVR have comparable efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes to NV-TAVR in patients requiring aortic valve replacement?
Does VIV-TAVR have comparable efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes to NV-TAVR in patients requiring aortic valve replacement?
VIV-TAVR demonstrates a safety and efficacy profile comparable to NV-TAVR, with potentially better early outcomes but a non-significant trend toward higher long-term mortality.
Supports VIV-TAVR feasibility for failed bioprostheses; leaves open long-term mortality signals for larger prospective confirmation.
Background: In recent years, the number of patients with failed surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses and the number of candidates for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) have been increasing. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term survival outcomes of VIV-TAVR compared with the benchmark native valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (NV-TAVR). Methods: = 69). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, in-hospital outcomes, and long-term survival outcomes were observed. Conclusion: VIV-TAVR shares the safety and efficacy profile of NV-TAVR. It also represents a better early outcome but a higher non-significant long-term mortality rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matta et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: