Transcatheter valve in valve replacement in stentless prosthetic aortic valves compared to a surgical approach: The lunch is good, but not free!

2022 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-194
Author(s):  
Errol Inci ◽  
Peter C. Block
2016 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 1452-1458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julius I. Ejiofor ◽  
Maroun Yammine ◽  
Morgan T. Harloff ◽  
Siobhan McGurk ◽  
Jochen D. Muehlschlegel ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 388-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijayakumar Subban ◽  
Michael Savage ◽  
James Crowhurst ◽  
Karl Poon ◽  
Alexander Incani ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (29) ◽  
pp. 2747-2755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer A Hirji ◽  
Edward D Percy ◽  
Cheryl K Zogg ◽  
Alexandra Malarczyk ◽  
Morgan T Harloff ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. Methods and results We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. Conclusion In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 152 (2) ◽  
pp. 622-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephane Leung Wai Sang ◽  
Jay Giri ◽  
Prashanth Vallabhajosyula

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 571-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Toggweiler ◽  
David A. Wood ◽  
Josep Rodés-Cabau ◽  
Samir Kapadia ◽  
Alexander B. Willson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. A1411
Author(s):  
Saroj Neupane ◽  
Hemindermeet Singh ◽  
Johannes Lämmer ◽  
Hussein Othman ◽  
Hiroshi Yamasaki ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (13) ◽  
pp. 1217-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Miller ◽  
Mandy Snyder ◽  
Benjamin D. Horne ◽  
James R. Harkness ◽  
John R. Doty ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document