Comparative performance of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation versus conventional surgical redo aortic valve replacement in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. (4th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gozdek, Mirosław; Raffa, Giuseppe Maria; Suwalski, Piotr; Kołodziejczak, Michalina; Anisimowicz, Lech; Kubica, Jacek; Navarese, Eliano Pio; Kowalewski, Mariusz
• Is Part Of: European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. Volume 53:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 495
• Page End: 504
• Publication Date: 2017-10-04
• Subjects: Aortic valve -- Bioprosthesis -- Valve-in-valve -- Aortic valve replacement -- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation -- Meta-analysis; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Chest -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.54
• DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx347
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-7940

Abstract

Summary: The objective of this report was to directly compare, by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-sAVR) with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV TAVI) for patients with failed degenerated aortic bioprostheses. Multiple databases were screened for all available reports comparing ViV TAVI with re-sAVR in patients with failing degenerated aortic bioprostheses. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality determined from the longest available survival data. Five observational studies ( n = 342) were included in the meta-analysis; patients in the ViV TAVI group were older and had a higher baseline risk compared to those in the re-sAVR group. Although there was no statistical difference in procedural mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18–2.97; P = 0.67], 30-day mortality (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.44–3.78; P = 0.64) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30–2.70; P = 0.86) at a mean follow-up period of 18 months, cumulative survival analysis favoured surgery with borderline statistical significance (ViV TAVI versus re-sAVR: hazard ratio 1.91, 95% CI 1.03–3.57; P = 0.039). ViV TAVI was associated with a significantly lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.68; P = 0.002) and shorter intensive care unit ( P < 0.001) and hospital stays ( P = 0.020). In contrast, re-sAVR offered superior echocardiographic outcomes: lower incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch ( P = 0.008), fewer paravalvular leaks ( P = 0.023) and lower mean postoperative aortic valve gradients in the prespecified analysis ( P = 0.017). The ViV TAVI approach is a safe and feasible alternative to re-sAVR that may offer an effective, less invasive treatment for patients with failed surgical aortic valve bioprostheses who are inoperable or at high risk. Re-sAVR should remain the standard of care, particularly in the low-risk population, because it offers superior haemodynamic outcomes with low mortality rates.