Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Vs Surgical Replacement of Failing Stented Aortic Biological Valves.

BACKGROUND

This study directly compared outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve insertion (TAVI-in-valve) with repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for failing stented aortic biological prostheses.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 350 consecutive patients who underwent repeat aortic valve replacement of failing stented aortic biological valve prostheses at our institution between November 2008 and May 2018. Operations included TAVI-in-valve in 90 patients (26%) and repeat SAVR in 260 patients (74%).

RESULTS

Patient age was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65-79 years), 100 patients (29%) were women, aortic valve internal diameter was 21 mm (IQR, 19-22), Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted operative mortality risk was 4.1% (IQR, 2.3%-6.8%), and the interval to repeat operation was 7 years (IQR, 5-11 years). A 23-mm or smaller valve was inserted in 57 patients (63%) in the TAVI-in-valve group and in 170 (65%) in the SAVR group (P = .725). Aortic root enlargement was done in 45 patients (17%) in the SAVR group. Procedure-related complications were less in the TAVI-in-valve group (23% vs SAVR 59%, P < .001), whereas operative mortality was similar in both groups (2.2% vs SAVR 2.6%, P = 1.000). Severe patient-to-prosthesis mismatch was more common after TAVI-in-valve (44% vs SAVR 12%, P < .001). Median duration of follow-up was 2.1 years (IQR, 1.2-4.2 years). Multivariable analysis demonstrated no association between TAVI-in-valve and intermediate-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 2.22; P = .612).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI-in-valve and repeat SAVR can be done with similar operative and intermediate-term mortality. SAVR results in better hemodynamic function and thus appears the preferred option.