Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement or re‐surgical aortic valve replacement in degenerated bioprostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of short and midterm results

INTRODUCTION: Despite limited to short and midterm outcomes, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a valid alternative to re-surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) for high- and intermediate-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprosthesis. METHODS: All studies comparing multivariate adjustment between ViV TAVI and re-SAVR were screened. The primary end-points were all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality at 30 days and at Midterm follow-up. Short-term complications were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: We obtained data from 11 studies, encompassing 8570 patients, 4224 undergoing ViV TAVI, and 4346 re-SAVR. Four studies included intermediate-risk patients and seven high-risk patients. 30-day all-cause and CV mortality were significantly lower in ViV (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.29-0.64 and OR 0.44, 0.26-0.73 respectively), while after a mean follow-up of 717 (180-1825) days, there was no difference between the two groups (OR 1.04, 0.87-1.25 and OR 1.05, 0.78-1.43, respectively). The risk of stroke (OR 1.03, 0.59-1.82), MI (OR 0.70, 0.34-1.44), major vascular complications (OR 0.92, 0.50-1.67), and permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 0.67, 0.36-1.25) at 30 days did not differ, while major bleedings and new-onset atrial fibrillation were significantly lower in ViV patients (OR 0.41, 0.25-0.67 and OR 0.23, 0.12-0.42, respectively, all 95% CIs). CONCLUSIONS: In high- and intermediate-risk patients with degenerated surgical bioprostheses, ViV TAVI is associated with reduced short-term mortality, compared with re-SAVR. Nevertheless, no differences were found in all-cause and CV mortality at midterm follow-up. PROSPERO CRD42021226488.