Two-Year Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Using New-Generation Transcatheter Devices Compared With Redo-SAVR

Abstract

Few studies have compared the clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) with new-generation valves and re-operative surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR). We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-TAVR with those of patients who underwent Redo-SAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2015 and 2021. New-generation valves were used for ViV-TAVR. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30 days and 2 years. In-hospital procedural and clinical outcomes were also compared between the groups. A total of 256 patients (140 who underwent ViV-TAVR and 116 who underwent Redo-SAVR) were eligible for PSM. In the unmatched cohort, patients in the ViV-TAVR group were older and had more co-morbidities than those in the Redo-SAVR group. After PSM, there were no significant differences in all-cause death between the ViV-TAVR and Redo-SAVR groups at 30 days (3.9% vs 2.6%, p = 0.65) or 2 years (6.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.75). The incidences of stroke and heart failure rehospitalization were similar at 30 days and 2 years. The cumulative complication rates during hospitalization were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVR group than in the Redo-SAVR group (11.7% vs 28.6% p = 0.015). The long-term outcomes of ViV-TAVR using new-generation valves were similar to those of Redo-SAVR, although ViV-TAVR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital complications.

Keywords: structural valve degeneration; surgical aortic valve replacement; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.