• Miroslaw Gozdek, Giuseppe Maria Raffa, Piotr Suwalski, Michalina Kolodziejczak, Lech Anisimowicz, Jacek Kubica, Eliano Pio Navarese, Mariusz Kowalewski, and SIRIO-TAVI group.
• Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiovascular Institute, Dr Antoni Jurasz Memorial University Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
• Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Mar 1; 53 (3): 495-504.

AbstractThe objective of this report was to directly compare, by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (re-sAVR) with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV TAVI) for patients with failed degenerated aortic bioprostheses. Multiple databases were screened for all available reports comparing ViV TAVI with re-sAVR in patients with failing degenerated aortic bioprostheses. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality determined from the longest available survival data. Five observational studies (n = 342) were included in the meta-analysis; patients in the ViV TAVI group were older and had a higher baseline risk compared to those in the re-sAVR group. Although there was no statistical difference in procedural mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-2.97; P = 0.67], 30-day mortality (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.44-3.78; P = 0.64) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30-2.70; P = 0.86) at a mean follow-up period of 18 months, cumulative survival analysis favoured surgery with borderline statistical significance (ViV TAVI versus re-sAVR: hazard ratio 1.91, 95% CI 1.03-3.57; P = 0.039). ViV TAVI was associated with a significantly lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.68; P = 0.002) and shorter intensive care unit (P < 0.001) and hospital stays (P = 0.020). In contrast, re-sAVR offered superior echocardiographic outcomes: lower incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (P = 0.008), fewer paravalvular leaks (P = 0.023) and lower mean postoperative aortic valve gradients in the prespecified analysis (P = 0.017). The ViV TAVI approach is a safe and feasible alternative to re-sAVR that may offer an effective, less invasive treatment for patients with failed surgical aortic valve bioprostheses who are inoperable or at high risk. Re-sAVR should remain the standard of care, particularly in the low-risk population, because it offers superior haemodynamic outcomes with low mortality rates.

22 keywords...

hide…