Meta-Analysis Comparing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement in Degenerated Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve

Abstract

Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR) are 2 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. 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 odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality, stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, arrhythmias, permanent pacemaker insertion, and hospital length of stay (LOS). A total of 6 observational studies with 707 subjects were included. The median follow-up was 2.7years. Despite their older age and greater co-morbidity burden, patients who underwent ViV-TMVR had a similar in-hospital mortality (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.23,p=0.14), 30-day mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.17,p=0.15), 1-year mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49, p=0.89), and 2-year mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.13, p=0.60) compared with redo-SMVR. ViV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower periprocedural complications, including stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, arrhythmias, and permanent pacemaker insertion, and shorter hospital LOS than redo-SMVR. In conclusion, ViV-TMVR was associated with better outcomes than redo-SMVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, including lower complication rates and shorter hospital LOS, with no significant difference in mortality rates. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to mitigate biases and confirm our findings.