Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
February 13, 2021Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: An updated meta‐analysis comparing midterm outcomes

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Key result

Valve-in-valve TAVR showed no significant difference in mid-term mortality compared to redo SAVR (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.99-1.32; p=0.06), but had significantly lower 30-day mortality.

Why the study?

Redo SAVR and ViV TAVR are both treatment strategies for severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction, warranting a comparison of early and mid-term outcomes.

Does ViV TAVR reduce mortality compared to redo SAVR in patients with severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction?

Comparison

ViV TAVR vs redo SAVR

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Follow-up

Mean 26 months

Authors

ATAbhishek ThandraWAWaiel AbusninaAJAravdeep Jhand

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Supports short-term preference for ViV TAVR in high-risk patients; leaves open long-term durability and RCT confirmation.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=2,891)

Structured PICO

Does ViV TAVR reduce mortality compared to redo SAVR in patients with severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction?

P
Population
2,891 individuals with bioprosthetic aortic valve disease from 9 observational studies, followed for a mean of 26 months.
I
Intervention
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR)
C
Comparator
Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR)
O
Outcome
Mid-term (1-5 years) and 1-year all-cause mortalityhard clinical

Main Result

Relative Risk: 1.15 (95% CI 0.99–1.32)

p-value: p=.06

ViV TAVR demonstrates lower 30-day mortality and similar mid-term mortality compared to redo SAVR, suggesting it should be preferred in patients at intermediate-high surgical risk.

Cite This Study

Thandra et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in bioprosthetic aortic valve disease (n=2,891). Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) vs. Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) was evaluated on mid-term (1-5 years) all-cause mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.32, p=.06). Valve-in-valve TAVR showed no significant difference in mid-term mortality compared to redo SAVR (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.99-1.32; p=0.06), but had significantly lower 30-day mortality.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7b36ec684c0941cf325f84https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29541
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis2021 · 39 citations
  2. 2Meta‐analysis comparing valve‐in‐valve TAVR and redo‐SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve2021 · 23 citations
  3. 3Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Conventional Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Bioprosthetic Valves: A Meta-analysis2020
  4. 4Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgery for failed bioprosthesis: a meta-analysis of over 20 000 patients2025 · 3 citations
  5. 5Comparing short- and long-term outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: a literature review2026