BACKGROUND: Due to a considerable rise in bioprosthetic as opposed to mechanical valve implantations, an increase of patients presenting with failing bioprosthetic surgical valves in need of a reoperation is to be expected. Redo surgery may pose a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an innovative, less-invasive treatment alternative for these patients. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the outcome of consecutive patients after a valve-in-valve TAVI [transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV)] as compared to a standard reoperation [surgical aortic valve redo-operation (SAV-in-SAV)] has not yet been performed. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after TAV-in-SAV and SAV-in-SAV in a single center setting. METHODS: All SAV-in-SAV and TAV-in-SAV patients from January 2001 to October 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with previous mechanical or transcatheter valves, active endocarditis and concomitant cardiac procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, preoperative data, post-procedural complications, and 30-day mortality were collected from a designated database. Mean values ± SD were calculated for all continuous variables. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using the t-test for independent samples. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 50 patients (49%) underwent a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure, while 52 patients (51%) underwent redo-surgery. Patients in the TAV-in-SAV group were significantly older, had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE and exhibited a lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction than patients in the SAV-in-SAV group (78.1±6.7 vs. 66.2±13.1, P<0.001; 27.4±18.7 vs. 14.4±10, P<0.001; and 49.8±13.1 vs. 56.7±15.8, P=0.019 respectively). Postoperative pacemaker implantation and chest tube output were higher in the SAV-in-SAV group compared to the TAV-in-SAV group [11 (21%) vs. 3 (6%), P=0.042 and 0.9±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.9, P=0.047, respectively]. There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke or dialysis postoperatively. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups [TAV-in-SAV2 (4%) vs. SAV-in-SAV0, P=0.238]. Kaplan-Meier (KM) 1-year survival was significantly lower in the TAV-in-SAV group than in the SAV-in-SAV group (83% vs. 96%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation shows that both groups, irrespective of different baseline comorbidities, show very good early clinical outcomes. While redo surgery is still the standard of care, a subgroup of patients may profit from the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure.
BACKGROUND: Due to a considerable rise in bioprosthetic as opposed to mechanical valve implantations, an increase of patients presenting with failing bioprosthetic surgical valves in need of a reoperation is to be expected. Redo surgery may pose a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an innovative, less-invasive treatment alternative for these patients. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the outcome of consecutive patients after a valve-in-valve TAVI [transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV)] as compared to a standard reoperation [surgical aortic valve redo-operation (SAV-in-SAV)] has not yet been performed. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after TAV-in-SAV and SAV-in-SAV in a single center setting. METHODS: All SAV-in-SAV and TAV-in-SAVpatients from January 2001 to October 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with previous mechanical or transcatheter valves, active endocarditis and concomitant cardiac procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, preoperative data, post-procedural complications, and 30-day mortality were collected from a designated database. Mean values ± SD were calculated for all continuous variables. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using the t-test for independent samples. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 50 patients (49%) underwent a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure, while 52 patients (51%) underwent redo-surgery. Patients in the TAV-in-SAV group were significantly older, had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE and exhibited a lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction than patients in the SAV-in-SAV group (78.1±6.7 vs. 66.2±13.1, P<0.001; 27.4±18.7 vs. 14.4±10, P<0.001; and 49.8±13.1 vs. 56.7±15.8, P=0.019 respectively). Postoperative pacemaker implantation and chest tube output were higher in the SAV-in-SAV group compared to the TAV-in-SAV group [11 (21%) vs. 3 (6%), P=0.042 and 0.9±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.9, P=0.047, respectively]. There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke or dialysis postoperatively. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups [TAV-in-SAV2 (4%) vs. SAV-in-SAV0, P=0.238]. Kaplan-Meier (KM) 1-year survival was significantly lower in the TAV-in-SAV group than in the SAV-in-SAV group (83% vs. 96%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation shows that both groups, irrespective of different baseline comorbidities, show very good early clinical outcomes. While redo surgery is still the standard of care, a subgroup of patients may profit from the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure.
Authors: Sergey Leontyev; Michael A Borger; Piroze Davierwala; Thomas Walther; Sven Lehmann; Jörg Kempfert; Friedrich W Mohr Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Francesco Onorati; Fausto Biancari; Marisa De Feo; Giovanni Mariscalco; Antonio Messina; Giuseppe Santarpino; Francesco Santini; Cesare Beghi; Giannantonio Nappi; Giovanni Troise; Theodor Fischlein; Giancarlo Passerone; Juni Heikkinen; Giuseppe Faggian Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-03-30 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Axel Linke; Felix Woitek; Marc W Merx; Conrad Schiefer; Sven Möbius-Winkler; David Holzhey; Ardawan Rastan; Jörg Ender; Thomas Walther; Malte Kelm; Friedrich W Mohr; Gerhard Schuler Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: A Pieter Kappetein; Stuart J Head; Philippe Généreux; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Eugene H Blackstone; Thomas G Brott; David J Cohen; Donald E Cutlip; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Rebecca T Hahn; Ajay J Kirtane; Mitchell W Krucoff; Susheel Kodali; Michael J Mack; Roxana Mehran; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Pascal Vranckx; John G Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W Serruys; Martin B Leon Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Leora B Balsam; Eugene A Grossi; David G Greenhouse; Patricia Ursomanno; Abelardo Deanda; Greg H Ribakove; Alfred T Culliford; Aubrey C Galloway Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Barbara E Stähli; Markus Reinthaler; Thi Dan Linh Nguyen-Kim; Catherine Gebhard; Hanna Tasnady; Jürg Grünenfelder; Volkmar Falk; Roberto Corti; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas F Lüscher; Willibald Maier; Michael J Mullen; Ulf Landmesser Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.022
Authors: Sergey Leontyev; Michael A Borger; Paul Modi; Sven Lehmann; Jörg Seeburger; Thomas Walther; Friedrich W Mohr Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Danny Dvir; John G Webb; Sabine Bleiziffer; Miralem Pasic; Ron Waksman; Susheel Kodali; Marco Barbanti; Azeem Latib; Ulrich Schaefer; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Hendrik Treede; Nicolo Piazza; David Hildick-Smith; Dominique Himbert; Thomas Walther; Christian Hengstenberg; Henrik Nissen; Raffi Bekeredjian; Patrizia Presbitero; Enrico Ferrari; Amit Segev; Arend de Weger; Stephan Windecker; Neil E Moat; Massimo Napodano; Manuel Wilbring; Alfredo G Cerillo; Stephen Brecker; Didier Tchetche; Thierry Lefèvre; Federico De Marco; Claudia Fiorina; Anna Sonia Petronio; Rui C Teles; Luca Testa; Jean-Claude Laborde; Martin B Leon; Ran Kornowski Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Manjula Maganti; Vivek Rao; Susan Armstrong; Christopher M Feindel; Hugh E Scully; Tirone E David Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Sameer A Hirji; Edward D Percy; Cheryl K Zogg; Alexandra Malarczyk; Morgan T Harloff; Farhang Yazdchi; Tsuyoshi Kaneko Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sascha Macherey; Max Meertens; Victor Mauri; Christian Frerker; Matti Adam; Stephan Baldus; Tobias Schmidt Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 5.501