Key result
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for small bioprostheses (≤19 mm) was associated with a significantly higher risk of the primary composite outcome compared to large bioprostheses (adjusted HR 3.72).
Why the study?
Clinical outcomes of ViV TAVR with newer-generation self-expanding Evolut valves according to the size of the failed surgical bioprosthesis remained to be evaluated.
Does valve-in-valve TAVR in small failed bioprostheses (≤19 mm) compared to large bioprostheses (>19 mm) worsen clinical outcomes in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses?
Cohort (n=91)
No
Does valve-in-valve TAVR in small failed bioprostheses (≤19 mm) compared to large bioprostheses (>19 mm) worsen clinical outcomes in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses?
Valve-in-valve TAVR in small failed bioprostheses (≤19 mm) is associated with significantly higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes and prosthesis-patient mismatch compared to larger bioprostheses.
May warrant caution in valve-in-valve TAVR for small bioprostheses; leaves open optimal strategies pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) with newer-generation self-expanding Evolut valves according to the size of the failed surgical bioprosthesis. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing ViV TAVR with the Evolut Pro/Pro+/Fx between 2018 and 2022. These patients were compared based on the true internal diameter (ID) of the failed bioprosthesis, specifically ≤19 mm (small group) vs. >19 mm (large group). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and bioprosthetic valve failure. A Cox regression hazard model adjusted for covariates using propensity scores was used to assess the effect of the true ID on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients (small group, n = 35; large group, n = 56) were identified, and the median age of the entire cohort was 78 years. Patients in the small group were more likely to be female and have a small body surface area. The incidence of post-procedural mean gradient ≥20 mm Hg (40% vs. 8.9%, P = .001) and moderate/severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (63% vs. 38%, P < .001) was significantly higher in the small group. During a median follow-up period of 25 (range: 1.0-66) months, all-cause mortality showed no significant difference between the groups (adjusted P = .104); however, the rate of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the small group (adjusted hazard ratio 3.72, 95% CI 1.48; 9.37). CONCLUSION: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for small bioprostheses was associated with worse early and midterm outcomes compared with those for large bioprostheses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoshiyuki Yamashita (2025) conducted a cohort in Failed surgical bioprosthesis (n=91). Small failed bioprosthesis (true internal diameter ≤19 mm) vs. Large failed bioprosthesis (true internal diameter >19 mm) was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and bioprosthetic valve failure (HR 3.72, 95% CI 1.48; 9.37, p=0.005). Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for small bioprostheses (≤19 mm) was associated with a significantly higher risk of the primary composite outcome compared to large bioprostheses (adjusted HR 3.72).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: