Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic or native valves: a systematic review and meta analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background and purpose Currently, there is no comparative assessment of pooled clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for either failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves (TAV or SAV) and native aortic valve TAVI (NV-TAVI) for aortic stenosis. Thus, this systematic review investigated the clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVI compared with NV-TAVI. Methods A meta-analysis was conducted according to Cochrane Handbook and the PRISMA statement. A systematic literature search was performed, using EMBASE and MEDLINE from inspection to December 25, 2023, to explore the comparative outcomes between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI. RStudio software was used to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random-effects model was used to allow a more conservative assessment. Results Eighteen cohort studies (n=65,350) met eligibility criteria. Studies were categorized into 2 groups according to initially implanted bioprosthetic valve: TAV-in-TAV (5 studies, n=14490) and TAV-in-SAV implantation (13 studies, n=50860). Each ViV-TAVI group was compared with NV-TAVI. TAV-in-TAV implantation: There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality or stroke rates at ≥ 12 months between groups. The follow-up period was 12 months in all studies except in one (i.e., 24 months). Sensitivity analyses, by removing that study, did not show difference for both outcomes [(OR=1.25, 95%CI: 0.72-2.18) and (OR=1.14, 95%CI: 0.59-2.20), respectively]. TAV-in-TAV implantation was associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (OR=1.78, 95%CI: 1.10-2.88) within 30-day of follow-up. PPM insertion rate remained higher by 34% (OR=1.34, 95%CI: 1.02-1.76) even after removing the study that reported PPM insertion during index admission. Early conversion to open heart surgery and coronary occlusion (OR=3.75, 95%CI: 0.99-1417) did not differ between groups. TAV-in-SAV implantation: TAV-in-SAV implantation did not significantly reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, but stroke risk was reduced by 19% at ≥ 12 months follow-up. Sensitivity analyses by removing the studies with 24 months follow-up yielded comparable results [(OR=0.88, 95%CI: 0.64-1.21) and (OR=0.81, 95%CI: 0.70-0.94), respectively]. TAV-in-SAV implantation was associated with lower rates of PPM insertion compared with NV-TAVI (OR=0.33, 95%CI: 0.17-0.62) within 30-day of follow-up. The risk remained significantly lower by 69% (OR=0.31, 95%CI: 0.10-0.92) upon removing the studies that reported PPM insertion during the index admission. Early conversion to open heart surgery and coronary occlusion (OR=1.88, 95%CI: 0.82-4.32) did not differ between groups. Conclusion In comparison with NV-TAVI, TAV-in-TAV implantation was associated with higher PPM insertion rates, whereas, TAV-in-SAV implantation was associated with lower stroke and PPM insertion rates without an impact on mortality.