Abstract 13462: Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement versus Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR) are two treatment strategies for patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve dysfunction. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR in degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves. We used a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality, stroke, bleeding and vascular complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), arrhythmias, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: Six observational studies with a total of 1,339 subjects were included. Median follow-up was 2 years. Compared to redo-SMVR, ViV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower in-hospital (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.25-0.70; p=0.001) and 30-day mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24-0.98; p=0.04) but similar 1-year (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.64-1.47; p=0.89) and 2-year mortality (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.71-1.81; p=0.59). Stroke, bleeding, AKI, and arrhythmias were less frequent and hospital LOS was shorter with ViV-TMVR, however vascular complications were similar between both strategies. Conclusion: In patients with degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, ViV-TMVR is associated with better outcomes compared to redo-SMVR including lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality, lower complication rates, and shorter hospital LOS. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in transcatheter therapeutics, ViV-TMVR may be preferred over redo-SMVR, particularly in individuals at intermediate-to-high surgical risk.