scholarly journals Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmar Kuhn ◽  
Amila Cizmic ◽  
Kaveh Eghbalzadeh ◽  
Carolyn Weber ◽  
Parwis Baradaran Rahmanian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Alternative Treatment Option ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract Objective This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR). Methods Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study. Results ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

scholarly journals Aortic valve function post-replacement of severe aortic stenosis by transcatheter procedure versus surgery: a systematic review and metanalysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charbel Abi Khalil ◽  
Barbara Ignatiuk ◽  
Guliz Erdem ◽  
Hiam Chemaitelly ◽  
Fabio Barilli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Effective Orifice Area ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Heart Valve

AbstractTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has shown to reduce mortality compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR). However, it is unknown which procedure is associated with better post-procedural valvular function. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared TAVR to sAVR for at least 2 years. The primary outcome was post-procedural patient-prosthesis-mismatch (PPM). Secondary outcomes were post-procedural and 2-year: effective orifice area (EOA), paravalvular gradient (PVG) and moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL). We identified 6 trials with a total of 7022 participants with severe aortic stenosis. TAVR was associated with 37% (95% CI [0.51–0.78) mean RR reduction of post-procedural PPM, a decrease that was not affected by the surgical risk at inclusion, neither by the transcatheter heart valve system. Postprocedural changes in gradient and EOA were also in favor of TAVR as there was a pooled mean difference decrease of 0.56 (95% CI [0.73–0.38]) in gradient and an increase of 0.47 (95% CI [0.38–0.56]) in EOA. Additionally, self-expandable valves were associated with a higher decrease in gradient than balloon ones (beta = 0.38; 95% CI [0.12–0.64]). However, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of moderate/severe PVL (pooled RR: 9.54, 95% CI [5.53–16.46]). All results were sustainable at 2 years.

Comparison of Self-Expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Mauri ◽  
Stephen Gerfer ◽  
Elmar Kuhn ◽  
Matti Adam ◽  
Kaveh Eghbalzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Implantation Rate ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Cerebrovascular Events ◽  
Transcatheter Heart Valve ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Rapid Deployment

Abstract Background Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have emerged as increasingly used alternatives to conventional aortic valve replacement to treat patients at higher surgical risk. Therefore, in this single-center study, we retrospectively compared clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of two self-expanding biological prostheses, the sutureless and rapid deployment valve (RDV) Perceval-S (PER) and the transcatheter heart valve (THV) ACURATE neo/TF (NEO) in a 1:1 propensity-score-matching (PSM) patient cohort. Methods A total of 332 consecutive patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent either singular RDAVR with PER (119) or TAVI with NEO (213) at our institutions between 2012 and 2017. To compare the unequal patient groups, a 1:1 PSM for preoperative data and comorbidities was conducted. Afterward, 59 patient pairs were compared with regard to relevant hemodynamic parameter, relevant paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent postoperative pacemaker (PPM) implantation rate, and clinical postoperative outcomes. Results Postoperative clinical short-term outcomes presented with slightly higher rates for 30-day all-cause mortality (PER = 5.1% vs. NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.619) and major adverse cardiocerebral event in PER due to cerebrovascular events (transient ischemic attack [TIA]-PER = 3.4% vs. TIA-NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.496 and Stroke-PER = 1.7% vs. Stroke-NEO = 0.0%, p = 1). Moreover, we show comparable PPM rates (PER = 10.2% vs. NEO = 8.5%, p = 0.752). However, higher numbers of PVL (mild—PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 55.9%, p = 0.001; moderate or higher—PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 6.8%, p = 0.119) after TAVI with NEO were observed. Conclusion Both self-expanding bioprostheses, the RDV-PER and THV-NEO provide a feasible option in elderly and patients with elevated perioperative risk. However, the discussed PER collective showed more postoperative short-term complications with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality and cerebrovascular events, whereas the NEO showed higher rates of PVL.

scholarly journals Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Pompeu B.O. Sá ◽  
Jef Van den Eynde ◽  
Matheus Simonato ◽  
Luiz Rafael P. Cavalcanti ◽  
Ilias P. Doulamis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract 15174: Failing Aortic Tissue Valves in Patients at High Surgical Risk: Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-valve Procedures and Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Silaschi ◽  
Olaf Wendler ◽  
Liesa Castro ◽  
Moritz Seiffert ◽  
Edith Lubos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Pressure Gradients ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Risk ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
High Surgical Risk ◽  
Valve In Valve

Objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) is an innovative treatment for failed tissue valves (TV) in patients at high surgical risk. However, direct comparative data with standard repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (RE-SAVR) is scarce. We aimed to compare outcomes after ViV to conventional RE-SAVR in two European centers with established interventional programs. Methods: Retrospectively we explored in-hospital databases for patients ≥60 years, treated for degenerated TV. Patients with endocarditis and combined procedures were excluded. Primary endpoints were adjudicated according to VARC-2 criteria. Results: Between 2002 and 2015, 130 patients were treated for isolated failure of aortic TV’s (ViV: n=71, RE-SAVR: n=59). In ViV, Edwards Sapien valve (ESV) was most frequently used (n=36) but implanted into larger TV’s (CoreValve TV size: 22.2±1.3mm vs. ESV TV size: 24.1±2.0mm, p<0.01). Both age and logistic EuroSCORE I were higher in ViV compared to RE-SAVR (78.6±7.5 vs. 72.9±6.5 ys, p<0.01; 25.1±18.9 vs. 16.8±9.4%, p<0.01). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different with 4.2% (3/71) after ViV vs. 5.1% (3/59) post RE-SAVR (p=1.0). Device success was achieved in 54.9% (n=39) in ViV and all RE-SAVR patients (p<0.01). Perioperative stroke was not observed after ViV and in 2 patients after RE-SAVR (3.4%, p=0.2). Intensive-care stay was longer after RE-SAVR (3.4±2.9d vs. 1.9±1.8d, p<0.01). Following ViV, 22.5% (n=16) of patients had mild aortic regurgitation, vs. 11.3% (n=8; p=0.25) after RE-SAVR. Mean transvalvular pressure gradients at discharge were higher post ViV (19.3±7.3 vs.12.2±5.6mmHg, p<0.01). Rate of permanent pacemaker implantation was lower after ViV (9.9% vs. 27.1%, p<0.01). Survival at 90- and 180-days was 93.8% and 91.8% vs. 94.4% and 94.4% after ViV and RE-SAVR respectively (p=0.87). Conclusion: Despite a higher risk profile, early mortality was not different between the two treatment arms. Although ViV resulted in elevated postoperative transvalvular pressure gradients and therefore a lower rate of device success, mortality after 180-days was similar to RE-SAVR. At present, both techniques serve as complementary approaches and allow individualized patient care.

scholarly journals Infective Endocarditis After Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A State of the Art Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia L. Alexis ◽  
Aaqib H. Malik ◽  
Isaac George ◽  
Rebecca T. Hahn ◽  
Omar K. Khalique ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Entry Site ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) carries significant morbidity/mortality. Our review aims to compare incidence, predisposing factors, microbiology, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of PVE in surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR patients. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2020. Key words were indexed for original reports, clinical studies, and reviews. Reports were evaluated by 2 authors against a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they reported incidence and outcomes related to surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE and excluded if they were published pre‐2015 or included a small population. We followed the Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines for all stages of the design and implementation. Study quality was based on the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Thirty‐three studies with 311 to 41 025 patients contained relevant information. The majority found no significant difference in incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE (reported as 0.3%–1.2% per patient‐year versus 0.6%–3.4%), but there were key differences in pathogenesis. TAVR has a specific set of infection risks related to entry site, procedure, and device, including nonstandardized protocols for infection control, valve crimping injury, paravalvular leak, neo‐leaflet stress, intact/calcified native leaflets, and intracardiac hardware. With the expansion of TAVR to lower risk and younger patients, a better understanding of pathogenesis, patient presentation, and guideline‐directed treatment is paramount. When operative intervention is necessary, mortality remains high at 20% to 30%. Unique TAVR infection risks present opportunities for PVE prevention, therefore, further investigation is imperative.

scholarly journals Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Azka Latif ◽  
Noman Lateef ◽  
Muhammad Junaid Ahsan ◽  
Vikas Kapoor ◽  
Rana Mohammad Usman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Lower Incidence ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
All Cause Mortality

The number of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of prior cardiac surgery has increased. Prior cardiac surgery increases the risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. To evaluate the impact of prior cardiac surgery on clinical endpoints in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The clinical endpoints included in our study were 30-day mortality, 1–2-year mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, stroke, procedural time, and duration of hospital stay. Seven studies, which included a total of 8221 patients, were selected. Our study found that TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of stroke and bleeding complications. There was no significant difference in terms of AKI, 30-day all-cause mortality, and 1–2-year all-cause mortality between the two groups. The average procedure time and duration of hospital stay were 170 min less (p ≤ 0.01) and 3.6 days shorter (p < 0.01) in patients with TAVR, respectively. In patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft and severe AS, both TAVR and SAVR are reasonable options. However, TAVR may be associated with a lower incidence of complications like stroke and perioperative bleeding, in addition to a shorter length of stay.

scholarly journals Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (29) ◽  
pp. 2747-2755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer A Hirji ◽  
Edward D Percy ◽  
Cheryl K Zogg ◽  
Alexandra Malarczyk ◽  
Morgan T Harloff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve In Valve

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.

scholarly journals Comparative survival and role of STS score in aortic paravalvular leak after SAVR or TAVR: a retrospective study from the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ratnasari Padang ◽  
Mahmoud Ali ◽  
Kevin L Greason ◽  
Christopher G Scott ◽  
Manasawee Indrabhinduwat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Sts Score

ObjectiveThe presence of aortic paravalvular leak (PVL) is associated with lower survival, but a direct comparison of its impact after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has not been performed. This study sought to determine the differential influence of PVL on survival following TAVR versus SAVR and in patients with varying levels of risk as defined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score.MethodsPatients with and without postprocedural PVL were identified from 2290 patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR at Mayo Clinic between 2008 and 2014. The primary endpoint was overall survival.ResultsThere were 588 patients with PVL (374 TAVR, 214 SAVR): age 78±11 years, 63% male and mean follow-up of 3±2 years. PVL was trivial/mild in 442 (75%) patients. In propensity-matched analyses (n=86 per group), the overall survival at 1 and 4 years was 93% and 56% vs 89% and 61% in patients with PVL after TAVR versus SAVR, respectively (p=0.43). The presence or degree of PVL severity had no influence on survival of patients with high STS score (≥8%), while the presence of greater than mild PVL predicted worse survival in those with STS score <8%. During the first year after PVL diagnosis, while either improvement or stable PVL grade was seen in the majority of patients, worsening of PVL grade was more common in the TAVR group (19%) versus the SAVR group (4%) (p<0.0001).ConclusionsAt mid-term follow-up, the presence of PVL was associated with equally unfavourable outcomes following SAVR or TAVR. In patients with high STS risk score, the presence of PVL was not independently associated with increased mortality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document