Key result
ViV TAVI is linked to ~58% lower in-hospital mortality but higher readmissions versus repeat SAVR.
Why the study?
Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes of ViV TAVI following its FDA approval in 2015 compared with repeat SAVR for failed aortic bioprostheses.
Does valve-in-valve TAVI reduce mortality and readmissions compared to repeat SAVR in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis?
Population
6,769 patients undergoing ViV TAVI or repeat SAVR for a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve
Comparison
ViV TAVI vs repeat SAVR
Design
Retrospective cohort study using propensity score-matching
Follow-up
6 months
Loading...
ViV TAVI may inform individualized decisions in failed bioprostheses; leaves open net benefit versus repeat SAVR pending randomized trials.
Cohort (n=6,769)
Yes
Does valve-in-valve TAVI reduce mortality and readmissions compared to repeat SAVR in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis?
Odds Ratio: 0.42 (95% CI 0.2–0.9)
p-value: p=0.026
In patients with failed aortic bioprostheses, ViV TAVI offers lower in-hospital mortality but is associated with higher short- and intermediate-term readmission rates compared to repeat SAVR.
A 2022 study conducted a cohort in failed aortic bioprosthetic valve (n=6,769). Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV TAVI) vs. Repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.90, p=0.026). ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.20-0.90; p=0.026) but higher 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission compared with repeat SAVR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: