Key result
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation yields similar 3-year survival to redo SAVR for bioprosthetic degeneration.
Why the study?
To compare early and midterm outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration.
Does transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation improve early and midterm outcomes compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration?
Cohort (n=88)
Does transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation improve early and midterm outcomes compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is a safe and feasible alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration, offering similar midterm survival with lower rates of pacemaker implantation and shorter hospital stays.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dokollari et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration (n=88). Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) vs. Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) was evaluated on 3-year survival (p=0.10). Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation resulted in similar 3-year survival compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (83.9% vs 93.0%, p=0.10) for bioprosthetic valve degeneration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: