Key result
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic valve failure showed similar 1-year survival compared to minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement (94.9% vs 86.9%; P=0.969).
Why the study?
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation and minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement have rapidly increased as alternatives to conventional reoperative surgical AVR.
Does transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation improve outcomes compared to minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement in patients with bioprosthetic valve failure?
Cohort (n=68)
No
Does transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation improve outcomes compared to minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement in patients with bioprosthetic valve failure?
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation provides similar 1-year survival to minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic valve failure, with the added benefits of shorter hospital stays and fewer pacemaker implantations despite a higher-risk patient profile.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support practice change from observational data; leaves open confirmation versus surgery in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (TViV) and minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement (MIrAVR) have rapidly increased as alternatives to conventional reoperative surgical AVR. This study reports a single-center experience of patients undergoing TViV and MIrAVR after bioprosthetic valve failure. METHODS: In this retrospective review between March 2009 and October 2018, 68 patients without reoperative full sternotomies, concomitant procedures, active endocarditis, and prior homografts or coronary artery bypass grafting underwent isolated AVR for degenerated aortic bioprostheses. Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores and age are reported as median (interquartile range [IQR]) and length of stay is reported as mean (standard deviation [SD]) due to their characteristics of the distribution. RESULTS: Forty-one (60.3%) patients underwent TViV, and 27 (39.7%) patients underwent MIrAVR. Median [IQR] STS risk scores were 5.7 [4.0-7.8] and 2.0 [1.5-3.4] for TViV and MIrAVR, respectively (p ≤ .001). The median [IQR] age for TViV patients was higher (78 [71-84] vs. 66 [53-72] years, p ≤ 0.001). More permanent pacemakers were implanted (22.2% vs. 9.8%) following MIrAVR. The MIrAVR group had a higher rate of atrial fibrillation (18.5% vs. 9.8%, p = .466). Average (SD) length of stay was less in TViV (5.3 days, SD: 3.4 vs. 8.6 days, SD: 7.4, p = .001). Survival at 1 year was not significantly different for TViV and MIrAVR (94.9% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.0%, 98.7%] and 86.9% [95% CI: 64.0%, 95.7%], respectively [p = .969]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being at higher-risk, patients undergoing TViV had reduced rates of permanent pacemaker implantations and atrial fibrillation, and a shorter hospital stay as compared to MIrAVR. Survival at 1-year was similar between the two groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shah et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Bioprosthetic valve failure (n=68). Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (TViV) vs. Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement (MIrAVR) was evaluated on Survival at 1 year (p=0.969). Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic valve failure showed similar 1-year survival compared to minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement (94.9% vs 86.9%; P=0.969).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: