Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on post-procedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing ViV-TAVR to redo-SAVR to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment modalities. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR: 0.50 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.58), P < 0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.67) P = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR: 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.45), P < 0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR: 0.25 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.53), P = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, M.I, post-operative LVEF, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for elderly patients with high comorbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment modalities present similar results on short to medium-term complications assessment.