OBJECTIVES: This study compares 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year echocardiographic findings and clinical outcomes of transcatheter pulmonary valve-in-valve replacement (TPVR) and repeat surgical pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR). BACKGROUND: In patients with adult congenital heart disease and previous pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) who require redo PVR, it is unclear whether TPVR or repeat SPVR is the preferred strategy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 66 patients (TPVR, n = 36; SPVR, n = 30) with bioprosthetic pulmonary valves (PVs) who underwent either TPVR or repeat SPVR at Emory Healthcare from January 2007 to August 2017. RESULTS: The TPVR cohort had fewer men and more patients with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV. There was no difference in mortality, cardiovascular readmission, or post-procedural PV reintervention at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Post-procedural echocardiographic findings showed no difference in mean PV gradients between the TPVR and SPVR groups at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. In the TPVR cohort, there was less right ventricular dysfunction at 30 days (2.9% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.01), despite higher baseline NYHA functional class in the SPVR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with bioprosthetic PV dysfunction who underwent either TPVR or SPVR, there was no difference in mortality, cardiovascular readmission, or repeat PV intervention at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Additionally, TPVR and SPVR had similar intermediate-term PV longevity, with no difference in PV gradients or PVR. The TPVR cohort also had less right ventricular dysfunction at 30 days despite a higher baseline NYHA functional classification. These intermediate-term results suggest that TPVR may be an attractive alternative to SPVR in patients with previous bioprosthetic surgical PVs.
OBJECTIVES: This study compares 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year echocardiographic findings and clinical outcomes of transcatheter pulmonary valve-in-valve replacement (TPVR) and repeat surgical pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR). BACKGROUND: In patients with adult congenital heart disease and previous pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) who require redo PVR, it is unclear whether TPVR or repeat SPVR is the preferred strategy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 66 patients (TPVR, n = 36; SPVR, n = 30) with bioprosthetic pulmonary valves (PVs) who underwent either TPVR or repeat SPVR at Emory Healthcare from January 2007 to August 2017. RESULTS: The TPVR cohort had fewer men and more patients with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV. There was no difference in mortality, cardiovascular readmission, or post-procedural PV reintervention at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Post-procedural echocardiographic findings showed no difference in mean PV gradients between the TPVR and SPVR groups at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. In the TPVR cohort, there was less right ventricular dysfunction at 30 days (2.9% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.01), despite higher baseline NYHA functional class in the SPVR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with bioprosthetic PV dysfunction who underwent either TPVR or SPVR, there was no difference in mortality, cardiovascular readmission, or repeat PV intervention at 30 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Additionally, TPVR and SPVR had similar intermediate-term PV longevity, with no difference in PV gradients or PVR. The TPVR cohort also had less right ventricular dysfunction at 30 days despite a higher baseline NYHA functional classification. These intermediate-term results suggest that TPVR may be an attractive alternative to SPVR in patients with previous bioprosthetic surgical PVs.
Authors: Dietmar Boethig; Murat Avsar; Ulrike M M Bauer; Samir Sarikouch; Philipp Beerbaum; Felix Berger; Robert Cesnjevar; Ingo Dähnert; Sven Dittrich; Peter Ewert; Axel Haverich; Jürgen Hörer; Martin Kostelka; Joachim Photiadis; Eugen Sandica; Stephan Schubert; Aleksandra Urban; Dmitry Bobylev; Alexander Horke Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Norihiko Kamioka; Vasilis C Babaliaros; John C Lisko; Anurag Sahu; Subhadra Shashidharan; Matthew R Carazo; Maan Jokhadar; Fred H Rodriguez; Wendy M Book; Patrick T Gleason; William B Keeling; Wissam Jaber; Peter C Block; Robert J Lederman; Adam B Greenbaum; Dennis W Kim Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 11.195