Key result
Transcatheter ViV is linked to suboptimal valve hemodynamics in ~61% of patients versus initial SAVR.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation improve haemodynamic outcomes compared to pre-ViV status in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses?
Observational (n=79)
No
Does transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation improve haemodynamic outcomes compared to pre-ViV status in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses?
Absolute Event Rate: 61% vs 24%
Aortic valve-in-valve procedures frequently result in suboptimal haemodynamics, highlighting the importance of preventing prosthesis-patient mismatch during initial surgical replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ViV improves hemodynamics vs pre-procedure in most patients yet leaves >60% with suboptimal gradients; leaves open optimal valve selection and sizing strategies.
Zenses et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Failed surgical bioprostheses at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (n=79). Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) vs. Early after initial surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Suboptimal valve haemodynamics (SVH) defined as high residual aortic mean gradient (≥20 mm Hg) and/or at least moderate aortic regurgitation. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation resulted in suboptimal valve haemodynamics in 61% of patients, compared with 24% early after their initial surgical replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: