• Sarah Yousef, Derek Serna-Gallegos, Nidhi Iyanna, Dustin Kliner, James A Brown, Catalin Toma, Amber Makani, David West, Yisi Wang, Floyd W Thoma, Danial Ahmad, Pyongsoo Yoon, Danny Chu, David Kaczorowski, Johannes Bonatti, and Ibrahim Sultan.
• Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
• J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2024 Oct 1; 168 (4): 100310101003-1010.

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsThis was a retrospective study using institutional databases of transcatheter (2013-2022) and surgical (2011-2022) aortic valve replacements. Patients who underwent ViV TAVR were compared with patients who underwent redo isolated SAVR. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for heart failure readmissions.ResultsA total of 4200 TAVRs and 2306 isolated SAVRs were performed. Of these, there were 198 patients who underwent ViV TAVR and 147 patients who underwent redo SAVR. Operative mortality was 2% in each group, but observed to expected operative mortality in the redo SAVR group was higher than in the ViV TAVR group (1.2 vs 0.32). Those who underwent redo SAVR were more likely to require transfusions and reoperation for bleeding, to have new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis, and to require a permanent pacemaker postoperatively than those in the ViV group. Mean gradient was significantly lower in the redo SAVR group than in the ViV group at 30 days and 1 year. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1 year were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ViV TAVR was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death compared with redo SAVR (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.65-2.99; P = .40). Competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for heart-failure readmissions were higher in the ViV cohort.ConclusionsViV TAVR and redo SAVR were associated with comparable mortality. Patients who underwent redo SAVR had lower postoperative mean gradients and greater freedom from heart failure readmissions, but they also had more postoperative complications than the VIV group, despite their lower baseline risk profiles.Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

36 keywords...

hide…