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 Managing Stroke During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Hecker ◽  
Mani Arsalan ◽  
Thomas Walther ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the default treatment option for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. There are, however, concerns regarding strokes during TAVR. Reported stroke rates vary strongly depending on the type of study, stroke definition, cohort and study period. Furthermore, stroke after TAVR occurs in three distinct phases: 1) early high-risk, directly procedure related; 2) elevated risk interval between day 2 and day 30; 3) late hazard interval. Each of these phases is caused by the different aetiologies of stroke. This review summarises the different aetiologies and potential strategies for managing stroke during TAVR.

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

scholarly journals Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with aortic stenosis and severe coronary artery disease: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Majid Ahsan ◽  
Rolf Alexander Jánosi ◽  
Tienush Rassaf ◽  
Alexander Lind
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often present with multiple comorbidities and suffer from critical coronary artery disease (CAD). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the therapy of choice for moderate to high-risk patients. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (v-a-ECMO) offers the possibility of temporary cardiac support to manage life-threatening critical situations. Case summary Here, we describe the management of a patient with severe AS and CAD with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We used v-a-ECMO as an emergency strategy in cardiogenic shock during a high-risk coronary intervention to stabilize the patient, and as a further bridge to TAVR. Discussion Very high-risk patients with severe AS are unlikely to tolerate the added risk of surgical aortic valve replacement. Using ECMO may help them to benefit from TAVR as the only treatment option available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document