Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing 3 Aortic Valve Interventions
Key result
In patients undergoing a third aortic valve intervention, structural valve deterioration was the primary indication (76%), and 30-day device success was 85% for TAVR and 94% for SAVR.
Why the study?
Although the risks of a second aortic valve intervention are recognized, little attention has been given to the challenges of a third.
Population
51 patients undergoing a third aortic valve intervention across 11 centers
Comparison
SAVR vs TAVR as a third aortic valve intervention
Design
Retrospective multicenter international registry
Follow-up
Median 565 (314-1,560) days
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Third aortic valve interventions feasible with high device success in selected patients; leaves open optimal lifetime valve strategies.
Study Design
Type
Observational (n=51)
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
P
Population
51 patients (mean age 69 years, 39% female) undergoing a third surgical or transcatheter aortic valve intervention, followed for a median of 565 days.
E
Exposure
Third aortic valve intervention (surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] or transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR])
O
Outcome
30-day device success and clinical outcomes adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 85% vs 94%
A third aortic valve intervention is feasible with favorable short-term device success, most commonly performed as TAVR following two prior SAVRs for structural valve deterioration.
Cite This Study
Tarantini et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Aortic valve disease requiring a third intervention (n=51). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Thirty-day device success. In patients undergoing a third aortic valve intervention, structural valve deterioration was the primary indication (76%), and 30-day device success was 85% for TAVR and 94% for SAVR.