A comparison of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed stentless versus stented surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to compare short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes, procedural complications, TAVR prosthesis hemodynamics, and paravalvular leak (PVL) in stentless and stented groups.

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical redo for bioprosthetic valve failure. There have been limited data on ViV in stentless surgical valves.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 40 patients who underwent ViV TAVR in prior surgical bioprosthetic valves at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from October 2014 to September 2017. Eighty percent (32/40) ViV TAVRs were in stentless, while 20% (8/40) were in stented bioprosthetic valves.

RESULTS

The primary mode of bioprosthetic valve failure for ViV implantation in the stentless group was aortic insufficiency (78%, 25/32), while in the stented group was aortic stenosis (75%, 6/8). The ViV procedure success was 96.9% (31/32) in stentless group and 100% in stented group (8/8). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality at 30 days between stentless and stented groups (6.9%, 2/31 versus 0%, 0/8, P = 0.33) and at 1 year (0%, 0/25 versus 0%, 0/5). In the stentless group, 34.4% (11/32) required a second valve compared to the stented group of 0% (0/8). There was a significant difference in the mean aortic gradient at 30-day follow-up (12.33 ± 6.33 mmHg and 22.63 ± 8.45 mmHg in stentless and stented groups, P < 0.05) and at 6-month follow-up (9.75 ± 5.07 mmHg and 24.00 ± 11.28 mmHg, P < 0.05), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ViV in the stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve has excellent procedural success and intermediate-term results. Our study shows promising data that may support the application of TAVR in stentless surgical aortic valve. However, further and larger studies need to further validate our single center's experience.