Derrick Y Tam1, Christoffer Dharma2, Rodolfo V Rocha3, Maral Ouzounian3, Harindra C Wijeysundera4, Peter C Austin5, Joanna Chikwe6, Mario Gaudino7, Stephen E Fremes8. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 8. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: stephen.fremes@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare early and late outcomes between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR. BACKGROUND: Published studies to date comparing redo surgical AVR (RS) with ViV transcatheter AVR for failed biological prostheses have been small and limited to early outcomes. METHODS: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, were linked to obtain patients undergoing ViV and RS for failed previous biological prostheses. Propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Early outcomes were compared using the McNemar test. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 558 patients undergoing intervention for failed biological prostheses between March 31, 2008, and September 30, 2017, at 11 Ontario institutions (ViV, n = 214; RS, n = 344) were included. Patients who underwent ViV were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching on 27 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n = 131 pairs). Mean time from initial AVR to RS or ViV was 8.6 ± 4.4 years and 11.3 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared with RS (absolute risk difference: -7.5%; 95% confidence interval: -12.6% to -2.3%). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusions were also lower with ViV, as was length of stay. Survival at 5 years was higher with ViV (76.8% vs. 66.8%; hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay and with increased survival compared with RS and may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prostheses.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare early and late outcomes between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR. BACKGROUND: Published studies to date comparing redo surgical AVR (RS) with ViV transcatheter AVR for failed biological prostheses have been small and limited to early outcomes. METHODS: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, were linked to obtain patients undergoing ViV and RS for failed previous biological prostheses. Propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Early outcomes were compared using the McNemar test. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 558 patients undergoing intervention for failed biological prostheses between March 31, 2008, and September 30, 2017, at 11 Ontario institutions (ViV, n = 214; RS, n = 344) were included. Patients who underwent ViV were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching on 27 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n = 131 pairs). Mean time from initial AVR to RS or ViV was 8.6 ± 4.4 years and 11.3 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared with RS (absolute risk difference: -7.5%; 95% confidence interval: -12.6% to -2.3%). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusions were also lower with ViV, as was length of stay. Survival at 5 years was higher with ViV (76.8% vs. 66.8%; hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay and with increased survival compared with RS and may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prostheses.
Authors: Iuliana Coti; Udo Maierhofer; Claus Rath; Paul Werner; Christian Loewe; Alfred Kocher; Guenther Laufer; Martin Andreas Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2021-01-22
Authors: Luis Augusto P Dallan; John K Forrest; Michael J Reardon; Wilson Y Szeto; Isaac George; Susheel Kodali; Neal S Kleiman; Steven J Yakubov; Kendra J Grubb; Fang Liu; Cristian Baeza; Guilherme F Attizzani Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Arif A Khokhar; Francesco Ponticelli; Adriana Zlahoda-Huzior; Kailash Chandra; Rossella Ruggiero; Marco Toselli; Francesco Gallo; Alberto Cereda; Alessandro Sticchi; Alessandra Laricchia; Damiano Regazzoli; Antonio Mangieri; Bernhard Reimers; Simone Biscaglia; Carlo Tumscitz; Gianluca Campo; Ghada W Mikhail; Won-Keun Kim; Antonio Colombo; Dariusz Dudek; Francesco Giannini Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Alexander E Kostyunin; Arseniy E Yuzhalin; Maria A Rezvova; Evgeniy A Ovcharenko; Tatiana V Glushkova; Anton G Kutikhin Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Andrea Buono; Diego Maffeo; Giovanni Troise; Francesco Donatelli; Maurizio Tespili; Alfonso Ielasi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.241