Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: An updated meta‐analysis comparing midterm outcomes. Issue 7 (13th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thandra, Abhishek; Abusnina, Waiel; Jhand, Aravdeep; Shaikh, Kashif; Bansal, Raahat; Pajjuru, Venkata S.; Al‐Abdouh, Ahmad; Kanmanthareddy, Arun; Alla, Venkata M.
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 97:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: 1481
• Page End: 1488
• Publication Date: 2021-02-13
• Subjects: bioprosthetic valve -- surgical aortic valve replacement -- transcutaneous aortic valve replacement -- valve‐in‐valve; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29541
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: 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.