TY - JOUR
T1 - Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve
T2 - An updated meta-analysis comparing midterm outcomes
AU - Thandra, Abhishek
AU - Abusnina, Waiel
AU - Jhand, Aravdeep
AU - Shaikh, Kashif
AU - Bansal, Raahat
AU - Pajjuru, Venkata S.
AU - Al-Abdouh, Ahmad
AU - Kanmanthareddy, Arun
AU - Alla, Venkata M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2021/6/1
Y1 - 2021/6/1
N2 - Background: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) are the two treatment strategies available for patients with severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. Herein, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing both early and mid-term outcomes of ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve disease. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane reviews, and Google scholar electronic databases were searched and studies comparing ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR were included. The primary outcome of interest was mid-term (1–5 years) and 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included were 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, pacemaker implantation, stroke, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, and postprocedural aortic valve gradients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all outcomes using the DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model. Results: Nine observational studies with a total of 2,891 individuals and mean follow-up of 26 months met the inclusion criteria. There is no significant difference in mid-term and 1-year mortality between ViV-TAVR and redo SAVR groups with RR of 1.15 (95% CI 0.99–1.32; p =.06) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.69–1.61; p =.8). 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in ViV-TAVR group with RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.45–0.93; p =.02). ViV-TAVR group had lower 30-day bleeding, length of stay, and higher postoperative gradients. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a lower 30-day mortality and similar 1-year and mid-term mortality for ViV TAVR compared to redo SAVR despite a higher baseline risk. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in the transcatheter therapeutics, VIV TAVR should be preferred over redo SAVR particularly in those at intermediate-high surgical risk.
AB - Background: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) are the two treatment strategies available for patients with severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. Herein, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing both early and mid-term outcomes of ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve disease. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane reviews, and Google scholar electronic databases were searched and studies comparing ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR were included. The primary outcome of interest was mid-term (1–5 years) and 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included were 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, pacemaker implantation, stroke, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, and postprocedural aortic valve gradients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all outcomes using the DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model. Results: Nine observational studies with a total of 2,891 individuals and mean follow-up of 26 months met the inclusion criteria. There is no significant difference in mid-term and 1-year mortality between ViV-TAVR and redo SAVR groups with RR of 1.15 (95% CI 0.99–1.32; p =.06) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.69–1.61; p =.8). 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in ViV-TAVR group with RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.45–0.93; p =.02). ViV-TAVR group had lower 30-day bleeding, length of stay, and higher postoperative gradients. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a lower 30-day mortality and similar 1-year and mid-term mortality for ViV TAVR compared to redo SAVR despite a higher baseline risk. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in the transcatheter therapeutics, VIV TAVR should be preferred over redo SAVR particularly in those at intermediate-high surgical risk.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100834272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100834272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ccd.29541
DO - 10.1002/ccd.29541
M3 - Article
C2 - 33580743
AN - SCOPUS:85100834272
VL - 97
SP - 1481
EP - 1488
JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
SN - 1522-1946
IS - 7
ER -