Key result
Reintervention for failed balloon-expandable valves shows similar mortality to self-expanding valves.
Why the study?
Data are limited on how transcatheter aortic valve type affects outcomes of redo-TAVR and TAVR-explant for TAVR failure as TAVR expands to younger patients.
Does initial valve type (failed balloon-expandable vs self-expanding valves) impact reintervention strategy or survival in patients undergoing redo-TAVR or TAVR-explant for TAVR failure?
Observational (n=553)
Yes
Does initial valve type (failed balloon-expandable vs self-expanding valves) impact reintervention strategy or survival in patients undergoing redo-TAVR or TAVR-explant for TAVR failure?
Initial TAVR valve type (balloon-expandable vs self-expanding) dictates the mechanism and timing of failure but does not impact survival or reintervention strategy during redo-TAVR or explant.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparable reintervention mortality irrespective of initial valve type supports standardized approaches; leaves open mechanism-specific prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) expands to younger patients, there is limited data on the impact of TAV type on outcomes of TAVR-explant and redo-TAVR for TAVR failure. We sought to compare outcomes of reintervention for failed balloon-expandable valves (BEV) versus self-expanding valves (SEV). METHODS: From May 2009 to February 2022, 553 patients from 29 centers in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent redo-TAVR or TAVR-explant for TAVR failure during a separate admission from index TAVR. Mechanically expanding valves and explantation for endocarditis were excluded. 158 (41.4%) failed-BEV were compared with 224 (58.6%) failed-SEV, and outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Mean age at reintervention was 75.5±9.3 years, and 40.6% were female. Failed-BEV had higher proportion of structural valve deterioration (73.4% versus 46.1% in failed-SEV; P <0.001) and prosthesis–patient mismatch (12.3% versus 5.5%, P =0.022) and fewer paravalvular leak (18.2% versus 41.1%; P <0.001) paralleling a longer time-to-reintervention (41.8 versus 19.7 months; P <0.001). Reintervention strategy was nearly identical between groups (redo TAVR 54.4% failed-BEV versus 53.6% failed-SEV; TAVR-explant 45.6% versus 46.4%; P =0.92), with cross-platform redo-TAVR favored in both groups (58.1% of failed-BEV received SEV; 59.2% of failed-SEV received BEV; P =0.016). Compared with failed-SEV, reintervention for failed-BEV had similar mortality at 30 days (8.7% versus 8.0%; P =0.85) and 1 year (24.3% versus 21.5%; P =0.65), with no differences in risk-adjusted 3-year cumulative mortality when stratified by reintervention type (redo TAVR: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15 [0.61–2.20]; ref: failed-BEV); TAVR-explant: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84 [0.46–1.54]). CONCLUSIONS: Failed-BEV and failed-SEV showed distinct failure mechanisms and timing of reintervention, but initial valve type did not impact reintervention strategy or survival after redo-TAVR or TAVR-explant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaid et al. (2026) conducted an observational in TAVR failure (n=553). Failed balloon-expandable valves (BEV) vs. Failed self-expanding valves (SEV) was evaluated on Mortality at 1 year (p=0.65). Reintervention for failed balloon-expandable valves compared with self-expanding valves resulted in similar mortality at 1 year (24.3% vs 21.5%; P=0.65) and 3 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: