Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedures offer a safe, less-invasive alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement improve outcomes compared to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration?
Does transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement improve outcomes compared to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration?
Transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement offers a less invasive alternative to reoperative surgery for failing bioprosthetic valves, emphasizing the need for careful preoperative planning and optimization.
Valve-in-valve TAVR feasible in select SVD patients; leaves open durability, selection criteria, and need for prospective trials.
Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard procedure to treat patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency. Bioprosthetic valves are used for surgical aortic valve replacement with a much greater prevalence than mechanical valves. However, bioprosthetic valves may fail over time because of structural valve deterioration; this often requires intervention due to severe bioprosthetic valve stenosis or regurgitation or a combination of both. In select patients, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement is performed by implanting a transcatheter heart valve within a failing bioprosthetic valve. The transcatheter ViV operation is a less invasive procedure compared with reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement, but it has been associated with specific complications and requires extensive preoperative work-up and planning by the heart team. Data from experimental studies and analyses of results from clinical procedures have led to strategies to improve outcomes of these procedures. The type, size, and implant position of the transcatheter valve can be optimized for individual patients with knowledge of detailed dimensions of the surgical valve and radiographic and echocardiographic measurements of the patient's anatomy. Understanding the complexities of the ViV procedure can lead surgeons to make choices during the original surgical valve implantation that can make a future ViV operation more technically feasible years before it is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reul et al. (2017) conducted a review in Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Deterioration. Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve (ViV) Procedure vs. Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) was evaluated. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedures offer a safe, less-invasive alternative to reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: