Key result
Valve-in-valve TAVR had mean 30-day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, with no significant differences compared to native TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement.
Why the study?
Selection criteria between valve-in-valve TAVR and redo surgical aortic valve replacement were not well established, making operative decision-making challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team.
Does valve-in-valve TAVR reduce stroke and mortality rates compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR in patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves?
Meta-Analysis (n=20,811)
Does valve-in-valve TAVR reduce stroke and mortality rates compared to redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR in patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves?
Valve-in-valve TAVR has comparable short- and mid-term stroke and mortality rates to native TAVR and redo surgical aortic valve replacement, supporting its use as a suitable option for degenerated bioprostheses.
May inform shared decisions for high-risk patients; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Background During the past decade, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was extended beyond treatment-naïve patients and implemented for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. Selection criteria for either valve-in-valve (viv) TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement are not well established, and decision making on the operative approach still remains challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team. Methods and Results This review was intended to analyze all studies on viv-TAVR focusing on short- and mid-term stroke and mortality rates compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR procedures. A structured literature search and review process led to 1667 potentially relevant studies on July 1, 2020. Finally, 23 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. All references were case series either with or without propensity score matching and registry analyses. Quantitative synthesis of data from 8509 patients revealed that viv-TAVR is associated with mean 30-day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Pooled data analysis showed no significant differences in 30-day stroke rate, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality between viv-TAVR and comparator treatment (native TAVR [n=11 804 patients] or redo surgical aortic valve replacement [n=498 patients]). Conclusions This review is the first one comparing the risk for stroke and mortality rates in viv-TAVR procedures with native TAVR approach and contributes substantial data for the clinical routine. Moreover, this systematic review is the most comprehensive analysis on ischemic cerebrovascular events and early mortality in patients undergoing viv-TAVR. In this era with increasing numbers of bioprosthetic valves used in younger patients, viv-TAVR is a suitable option for the treatment of degenerated bioprostheses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macherey‐Meyer et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves (n=20,811). Valve-in-valve (viv) TAVR vs. Native TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement was evaluated on 30-day stroke rate, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. Valve-in-valve TAVR had mean 30-day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, with no significant differences compared to native TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: