Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses
Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for failing bioprostheses showed similar 30-day mortality to redo surgical replacement (4.2% vs 5.1%, P=1.0), despite a higher patient risk profile.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation improve outcomes compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses?
Population
130 patients ≥60 years treated for failing aortic bioprostheses at two European centres. Excluded: infective…
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation vs Conventional redo surgical aortic valve…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
180 days
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
ViV may suit high-risk patients as less invasive option; leaves open optimal strategy pending randomized comparisons.
Study Design
Type
Cohort (n=130)
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
Does transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation improve outcomes compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses?
P
Population
130 patients aged ≥60 years treated for failing aortic bioprostheses across two European centers, followed for up to 180 days.
E
Exposure
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV)
C
Comparator
Conventional redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR)
O
Outcome
30-day mortalityhard clinical
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 4.2% vs 5.1%
p-value: p=1.0
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation offers similar early mortality to redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed bioprostheses, despite higher baseline surgical risk, though it is associated with higher transvalvular gradients.
Cite This Study
Silaschi et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Failing aortic bioprostheses (n=130). Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) vs. Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=1.0). Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for failing bioprostheses showed similar 30-day mortality to redo surgical replacement (4.2% vs 5.1%, P=1.0), despite a higher patient risk profile.