Comparison of Postdischarge Outcomes Between Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement.

Limited data are available comparing the postdischarge perioperative outcomes of isolated valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (VIV-TMVR) versus surgical reoperative mitral valve replacement (re-SMVR) on a nationwide scale. The objective of this study was to perform a robust head-to-head assessment of contemporary postdischarge outcomes between isolated VIV-TMVR and re-SMVR using a large national multicenter longitudinal database. Adult patients aged ≥18 years with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves who underwent either isolated VIV-TMVR or re-SMVR were identified in the 2015 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The risk-adjusted differences in 30-, 90-, and 180-day outcomes were compared using propensity score weighting with overlap weights to mimic the results of a randomized controlled trial. The differences between a transeptal and transapical VIV-TMVR approach were also compared. A total of 687 patients with VIV-TMVR and 2,047 patients with re-SMVR were included. After the overlap weighting to attain balance between treatment groups, VIV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower major morbidity within 30 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.0.31 [0.22 to 0.46]), 90 (0.34 [0.23 to 0.50]), and 180 (0.35 [0.24 to 0.51]) days. The differences in major morbidity were primarily driven by less major bleeding (0.20 [0.14 to 0.30]), new onset complete heart block (0.48 [0.28 to 0.84]) and need for permanent pacemaker placement (0.26 [0.12 to 0.55]). The differences in renal failure and stroke were not significant. VIV-TMVR was also associated with shorter index hospital stays (median difference [95% CI] -7.0 [4.9 to 9.1] days) and an increased ability for patients to be discharged home (odds ratio [95% CI] 3.35 [2.37 to 4.72]). There were no significant differences in total hospital costs; in-hospital or 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality; or readmission. The findings remained similar when stratifying the VIV-TMVR access using a transeptal versus a transapical approach. The changes in outcomes over time suggest marked improvements for patients with VIV-TMVR relative to stagnant results for patients with re-SMVR from 2015 to 2019. In this large nationally representative cohort of patients with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, VIV-TMVR appears to confer a short-term advantage over re-SMVR in terms of morbidity, discharge home, and length of stay. It yielded equivalent outcomes for mortality and readmission. Longer-term studies are needed to assess further follow-up beyond 180 days.