Aortic Bioprosthesis Research Articles

Stented versus stentless aortic valve replacement in elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Stentless aortic bioprostheses offer improved outcomes and long-term survival over stented aortic bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, it remains unclear whether this improved outcome can also be demonstrated in elderly patients. This meta-analysis sought to determine whether stentless bioprosthetic valves improve clinical outcomes compared with stented valves in elderly patients undergoing AVR. Methods: A comprehensive search was undertaken among PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials available up to March 2017 comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in elderly patients undergoing AVR. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analysed. Results: A total of 1,048 patients were analysed and data extracted from six studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Average age was 77 years. The stented group displayed a significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (P<0.0001; 95% CI: 0.424 to 1.05) and aortic cross clamp time (P<0.0001; 95% CI: 0.237 to 0.491) compared to the stentless group. There was no difference in the relative risks of stroke events (P=0.5074). In hospital mortality was significantly lower in the stentless group (P<0.0001). However, there was no difference in the 5-year mortality postoperatively for the two groups (P=0.835). Conclusions: Our results showed that stentless aortic valves resulted in lower in-hospital and similar 5-year mortality compared to stented valves, despite less favourable operative data. They have also had better echocardiographic findings both while in hospital and at 6 months of follow up.

Evaluation of Conduction Disorders after Aortic Valve Replacement with Rapid Deployment Bioprostheses

The aim of this retrospective, single-center study was to evaluate the occurrence of conduction disorders after rapid deployment aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Electrocardiograms of patients undergoing INTUITY (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) bioprosthesis implantation were collected at admission, during postoperative course, and at discharge. Primary end point was the occurrence of new-onset conduction disorders, defined as complete left bundle branch block, complete right bundle branch block, permanent pacemaker implantation, and worsening of pre-existing rhythm abnormalities. Secondary end points were the assessment of preoperative and postoperative QRS duration and the identification of transitory conduction disorders. Forty-four patients (July 2015-December 2016) were included in the analysis. Preoperatively, patients with normal conduction and with already existing disorders were 25 (56.8%) and 19 (43.2%), respectively. Primary end point occurred in 14 patients (31.8%). Two patients (4.5%) received pacemaker implantation. In patients with normal preoperative conduction, new abnormalities were found in eight cases (32%): all left bundle branch blocks with one pacemaker implantation. Worsening of pre-existing conduction disorders was found in six patients (31.6%) with one pacemaker implantation. QRS duration increased in 20 patients (45.4%), and average increase was 37 milliseconds. Overall, we observed a significant increase of QRS (96 ± 21 milliseconds vs. 111 ± 28 milliseconds, P < 0.001). Three patients experienced a new-onset temporary left bundle branch block. New-onset conduction disorders or worsening of pre-existing rhythm abnormalities occur in one third of patients after rapid deployment aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Although the incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation before discharge is low, strict follow-up is mandatory to identify a potential need for pacemaker implantation in a timely manner.

TCT-338 Comparison of Re-Do transcatheter aortic valve replacement with valve-in-valve for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicenter analysis of clinical and long-term outcome

Valve-in-Valve (ViV) for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is an effective treatment for patients that are not able to undergo re-operation. Limited data exist for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a redo for patients that have undergone TAVR procedures. Baseline

TCT-334 Treatment of degenerated aortic bioprostheses: a comparison between valve-in-valve transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and conventional reoperation

The use of bioprosthetic valves has increased over the last two decades. However, the major drawback is their deterioration and failure over time, requiring redo surgery. Conventional surgical replacement (re-SAVR) has been standard of care, but valve-in-valve deployment of transcatheter aortic

Meta-analysis of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The objective of this study was to determine whether valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (VIV-TAVI) is associated with better survival than redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses, and we performed a meta-analysis of comparative studies. To identify all comparative studies of VIV-TAVI versus redo SAVR; MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2017. For each study, data regarding all-cause mortality in both the VIV-TAVI and redo SAVR groups were used to generate odds ratios (ORs). To assess selection bias, we generated ORs and (standardized) mean differences (MDs) for baseline characteristics. Study-specific estimates were combined in the random-effects model. Of 446 potentially relevant articles screened initially, 6 reports of retrospective comparative studies enrolling a total of 498 patients were identified. Pooled analyses of baseline characteristics demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the proportion of women, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients with coronary artery disease, and patients with baseline New York Heart Association functional class of ≥III; baseline ejection fraction; and predicted mortality between the VIV-TAVI and redo SAVR groups. Patients in the VIV-TAVI group, however, were significantly older (MD, 4.20 years) and had undergone prior coronary artery bypass grafting more frequently (OR, 2.19) than those in the redo SAVR group. Main pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in early (30 days or in-hospital) (OR, 0.91; p = 0.83) and midterm (180 days-3 years) all-cause mortalities (OR, 1.42; p = 0.21) between the VIV-TAVI and redo SAVR groups. In patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses, especially elderly or high-risk patients, VIV-TAVI could be a safe, feasible alternative to redo SAVR. The lack of randomized data and differences in baseline characteristics in the present analysis emphasize the need for prospective randomized trials.

Commissural Alignment of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve and Native Aortic Valve Following Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and its Impact on Valvular Function and Coronary Filling

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the commissural alignment between bioprosthetic and native aortic valve leaflets following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to investigate its impact on valvular function and coronary filling. BackgroundExpansion and geometry have been shown to affect leaflets of implanted transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis, but commissural alignment has not been studied. MethodsPre- and post-procedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) of 28 SAVR patients and 212 TAVR patients were analyzed. Commissural alignment between the bioprosthetic (post) and native (pre) aortic valves was categorized as aligned (0° to 15° angle deviation) or as mild (15° to 30°), moderate (30° to 45°), or severe (45° to 60°) commissural misalignment (CMA). ResultsWith SAVR, 27 of 28 cases (96%) were aligned and 1 had mild CMA. For all types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), there was random valve implantation with regard to commissural alignment: 22% of THVs were aligned, 25% had mild CMA, 22% had moderate CMA, and 31% had severe CMA. The degree of commissural alignment was not associated with a difference in transvalvular gradient, paravalvular aortic regurgitation, or simulated coronary filling. However, there was a significantly higher rate of mild central aortic regurgitation in those THVs with moderate or greater CMA compared with those THV with mild or less CMA (7.8% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.03). ConclusionsCommissural alignment is excellent in case of SAVR but random in case of TAVR. There is no association between CMA and transvalvular gradient or coronary filling; however, there is a significantly higher rate of mild central aortic regurgitation in case of moderate or greater CMA.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients younger than 75 years: Guidelines-based patients selection and clinical outcome

BackgroundPatients treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in all major recent trials are still mostly octogenarians. Aim of this study is to analyze the risk profile and outcome of TAVI patients <75 years. Methods and resultsWe retrospectively analyzed 172 patients <75 years with symptomatic severe native AS or degeneration of surgical aortic bioprosthesis treated with TAVI. The level of surgical risk was reassessed according to multiparametric ACC classification (prohibitive in 68 patients, high in 34, intermediate in 70). Mean age was 69.02 ± 6.18 years, mean STS score 5.56 ± 5.21. The majority of them presented one or more clinical or anatomical characteristics favoring TAVI according to ECS guidelines, despite the young age. Vascular access was transfemoral in 76%. According to the VARC-2 definitions, device success was high (90%) in all groups. The early safety was 89%, clinical recovery was slower in prohibitive risk patients. Bleeding events were more frequent in prohibitive and high surgical risk classes. Clinical efficacy at 1 year was overall 83%, and significantly better in intermediate risk patients (p = 0.004). The functional status remained stable over time as well as prostheses performance. ConclusionAbout 40% of patients <75 years were treated by TAVI due to the presence of a prohibitive risk, mainly related to technical impediments. The remaining was referred to TAVI due to an estimated high or intermediate surgical risk driven by STS score, frailty and/or major organ system compromise. Early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were good, in particular in intermediate risk patients.

TAVI and valve performance: update on definitions, durability, transcatheter heart valve failure modes and management.

Aortic bioprostheses are increasingly used both for surgery, as an alternative to mechanical valves, and for transcatheter implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been widely adopted for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in elderly (>75 years) patients who are at risk for surgery and who have favourable transfemoral access. It is already under evaluation in low-risk patients. The aim of this review is to present an update on definitions and to assess the various forms of transcatheter heart valve failure and their management: structural valve deterioration, non-structural deterioration, thrombosis and endocarditis.

P6307Mid term outcome after transfemoral treatment of failing aortic valve bioprostheses

P6307Mid term outcome after transfemoral treatment of failing aortic valve bioprostheses

P4504A comparison of structural valve deterioration between transcatheter heart valves surgical aortic valve bioprostheses

P4504A comparison of structural valve deterioration between transcatheter heart valves surgical aortic valve bioprostheses

Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis replacement in elderly Asian patients with aortic stenosis: Experience in a single institution

BackgroundSutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR in an elderly Asian population. MethodsFrom June 2015 to May 2016, 15 adults with severe aortic stenosis (9 females) with a median age of 79 years underwent Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (LivaNova, UK) implantation in a single Taiwanese institution; peri-operative recovery, clinical improvement, and valve performance were analyzed. ResultsThree (20%) patients underwent concomitant procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, 1 patient; maze, 2 patients) and 6/12 (50%) patients underwent J-ministernotomy for isolated SU-AVR. Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time were 105 min and 69 min, respectively. All sutureless bioprosthesis were implanted successfully without conversion to a traditional valve, but 2 patients (13.3%) need intraoperative valve repositioning because of paravalvular leakage. Median extubation time and intensive care unit stay were 5 h and 2 days, respectively. One patient experienced in-hospital mortality due to sudden collapse thought secondary to high degree atrioventricular block. Serial echocardiographic evaluations were performed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. The final echocardiographic exams showed nothing greater than mild aortic insufficiency and the median mean trans-valvular gradient was 13.2 (range, 6.0–26.3) mmHg. ConclusionsBy simplified procedure and improved hemodynamics, SU-AVR can be implanted safely in elderly Asian population with excellent valvular performance.

234Treatment of degenerated aortic bioprostheses: a comparison between conventional reoperation and valve-in-valve transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

234Treatment of degenerated aortic bioprostheses: a comparison between conventional reoperation and valve-in-valve transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To determine the safety and efficacy of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of previously failed aortic bioprostheses. Valve-in-valve has emerged as a treatment option for patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis. Evidence for safety and efficacy remains limited to small studies. Medline and Embase were searched to 2017 for studies that directly compared ViV to redo SAVR. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Four unadjusted (n = 298) and two propensity-matched (n = 200) observational studies were included. Valve-in-valve patients were 2.85-years older (P = 0.03) and were 23% higher in predicted mortality risk (ratio of means: 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.02-1.48). There was no difference in peri-operative mortality (4.4% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.83;I2 = 0%) or late mortality, reported at median one year follow-up (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95%CI: 0.74-1.16, P = 0.51, I2 = 0%) between ViV and redo SAVR. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (8.3% vs 14.6%; P = 0.05;I2 = 0%) and dialysis (3.2% vs. 10.3%; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) were lower in ViV. There was a reduction in the incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (3.3% vs 13.5%; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and mild or greater paravalvular leak (5.5% vs 21.1%; P = 0.03; I2 = 37%) in the redo SAVR group compared to ViV. Despite higher predicted surgical risk of ViV patients, there was no difference in mortality but less permanent pacemaker implantation and dialysis compared to redo SAVR. Choice of treatment must be individualized for both anatomical and patient risk factors; in high risk patients with favorable previous prosthesis size, valve-in-valve may be preferred.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in failed stentless bioprostheses.

To compare the safety and efficacy of transcathether aortic valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in degenerated stentless bioprostheses with failed stented valves and degenerated native aortic valves. Little is known about ViV-TAVI in degenerated stentless valves. Out of 45 ViV-TAVI procedures reported in the POL-TAVI registry, 20 failed stentless valves were compared with 25 stented prostheses and propensity-matched with 45 native TAVI cases. The mean follow-up was 633 (95% confidence interval [CI], 471-795) days and Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) definitions were applied. Patients with degenerated stentless valves were younger (65.6, CI 58-73.1 years vs 75.6, CI 72.2-78 [stented] vs 80.1, CI 78.7-81.6 y. [native], P < 0.001). Implantation was required later after surgery (11.5, CI 8-14.9 years) in the stentless cohort as compared with the stented one (6.2, CI 4.7-7.6 years, P = 0.006). ViV-TAVI in the stentless group was also associated with larger amount of contrast (211, CI 157-266 mL vs 135, CI 104-167 mL [stented] vs 132 (119-145) mL [native], P = 0.022). Using VARC-2 composite endpoints, ViV-TAVI in stentless prostheses was characterized by a lower device success (50% vs 76% in stented vs 88.9% in native TAVI, P < 0.001), but comparable early safety up to 30 days (73.7% vs 84% vs 81.8%, respectively, log-rank P = 0.667) and long-term clinical efficacy beyond 30 days (72.2% vs 72% vs 73.8%, respectively, log-rank P = 0.963). Despite technical challenges and a lower device success, ViV-TAVI in stentless aortic bioprostheses achieves similar safety, efficacy, and functional improvement as in stented or degenerated native valves.

Antithrombotic Therapy After TAVR.

Transvascular Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment option in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are inoperable and has recently been evaluated in patients with intermediate surgical risk. The number of procedures is increasing worldwide in parallel with the demographic changes in industrial countries. The risk for cerebral embolism is of main concern and represents a major determinant for prognosis and quality of live after TAVR. The empiric antithrombotic therapy consists of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT); However the risk-benefit of this approach is lacking evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled trials regarding choice and duration of antithrombotic treatment. Although anticoagulation is generally not recommended in patients with aortic bioprosthesis without atrial fibrillation, there is current uncertainty whether combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy or anticoagulation alone might represent a more favorable antithrombotic regimen compared to the current empiric standard of DAPT. In addition, so far undetected atrial fibrillation is highly prevalent in the elderly population undergoing TAVR. In particular, the favorable safety profile of Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) offers an attractive option. A number of trials are currently underway to investigate the benefit of NOAC in patients with and without atrial fibrillation undergoing TAVR. The present article reviews the available evidence concerning stroke risk in TAVR patients and the current and future role of antithrombotic therapy during and after the procedure.

Hemodynamic Deterioration of Surgically Implanted Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

BackgroundDysmetabolic profile has been associated with native aortic valve stenosis. However, there are limited data on the effects of an atherogenic milieu and its potential implications on the structural and hemodynamic deterioration of aortic bioprosthetic valves. ObjectivesThis prospective longitudinal study sought to determine the predictors and impact on outcomes of hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) of surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses. MethodsA total of 137 patients with an aortic bioprosthesis implanted for a median time of 6.7 (interquartile range: 5.1 to 9.1) years prospectively underwent a first (baseline) assessment with complete Doppler echocardiography, quantitation of bioprosthesis leaflet calcification by multidetector computed tomography (CT), and a fasting blood sample to assess cardiometabolic risk profile. All patients underwent a second (follow-up) Doppler echocardiography examination at 3 (interquartile range: 2.9 to 3.3) years post-baseline visit. HVD was defined by an annualized change in mean transprosthetic gradient ≥3 mm Hg/year and/or worsening or transprosthetic regurgitation by ≥1/3 class. The primary endpoint was a nonhierarchical composite of death from any cause or aortic reintervention procedure (redo surgical valve replacement or transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation) for bioprosthesis failure. ResultsThirty-four patients (25.6%) had leaflet calcification on baseline CT, and 18 patients (13.1%) developed an HVD between baseline and follow-up echocardiography. Fifty-two patients (38.0%) met the primary endpoint during subsequent follow-up after the second echocardiographic examination. Leaflet calcification (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35 to 4.82; p = 0.005) and HVD (HR: 5.12; 95% CI: 2.57 to 9.71; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of the primary endpoint. Leaflet calcification, insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment index ≥2.7), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity (Lp-PLA2 per 0.1 nmol/min/ml increase), and high level of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) (≥305 ng/ml) were associated with the development of HVD after adjusting for age, sex, and time interval since aortic valve replacement. ConclusionsHVD identified by Doppler echocardiography is independently associated with a marked increase in the risk of valve reintervention or mortality in patients with a surgical aortic bioprosthesis. A dysmetabolic profile characterized by elevated plasma Lp-PLA2, PCSK9, and homeostatic model assessment index was associated with increased risk of HVD. The presence of leaflet calcification as detected by CT was a strong predictor of HVD, providing incremental risk-predictive capacity.

Matched comparison of next- and early-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve implantations in failed surgical aortic bioprostheses

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (VinV) is established for the treatment of degenerated surgical bioprostheses in patients at high operative risk. Our aim was to report on the first large assessment of VinV with next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves. After SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 VinV, 514 patients were analysed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting. Standardised clinical and haemodynamic outcomes were compared, and core laboratory evaluation of implantation depth was performed. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 0.6% and 3.5% for SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN XT (p=0.077). Residual transprosthetic gradient ≥20 mmHg was observed in 38.3% (SAPIEN 3) and 35.7% (SAPIEN XT) of patients (p=0.627) with increased rates in small bioprostheses (≤21 mm true ID). In SAPIEN 3 VinV, low implantation depth >20% THV stent frame length was associated with a higher rate of elevated transaortic gradients (p=0.048). Similarly, an implantation depth >5 mm was linked to more pacemaker implantations (p=0.01). Overall, a trend towards higher pacemaker implantation rates was observed after SAPIEN 3 VinV (6% vs. 2.5% in SAPIEN XT, p=0.071). Transcatheter aortic VinV with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 was similarly safe and effective. However, residual stenosis remains a concern, particularly in smaller bioprostheses and with increasing implantation depth.

Soluble CD14 is associated with the structural failure of bioprostheses

IntroductionAortic valve bioprostheses, which do not mandate chronic anticoagulation, are prone to structural valve degeneration (SVD). The processes involved in SVD are likely multifactorial. We hypothesized that inflammation and macrophage activation could be involved in SVD. MethodsIn 203 patients with an aortic valve bioprosthesis, we evaluated the association between the macrophage activation marker soluble CD14 (sCD14) and SVD. ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of 8 ± 3 years, 42 (21%) patients developed SVD. Patients with SVD had higher peak (44 ± 13 mmHg vs. 25 ± 12 mmHg, p < .0001) and mean (24 ± 7 mmHg vs. 12 ± 5 mmHg, p < .0001) transprosthetic gradients. On univariable analysis, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and sCD14 were associated with SVD. After correction for covariates, sCD14 (OR: 1.12, 95%CI: 1.02–1.23, p = .01) remained independently associated with SVD. In turn, sCD14 was associated with the HOMA index and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level. Patients with a metabolic syndrome (MetS) had higher level of sCD14. In a model corrected for age, sex, HOMA and HDL, the MetS remained independently associated with sCD14 levels (β = 0.65, SE = 0.30, p = .03). ConclusionCirculating level of sCD14 is an independent predictor of SVD. In turn, patients with MetS have higher sCD14 levels.

Morphometrical and biomechanical analyses of a stentless bioprosthetic valve: an implication to avoid potential primary tissue failure.

Stentless bioprosthetic valves provide hemodynamic advantages over stented valves as well as excellent durability. However, some primary tissue failures in bioprostheses have been reported. This study was conducted to evaluate the morphometrical and biomechanical properties of the stentless Medtronic Freestyle™ aortic root bioprosthesis, to identify any arising problem areas, and to speculate on a potential solution. The three-dimensional heterogeneity of the stentless bioprosthesis wall was investigated using computed tomography. The ascending aorta and the right, left, and non-coronary sinuses of Valsalva were resected and examined by an indentation test to evaluate their biomechanical properties. The non-coronary sinus of Valsalva was significantly thinner than the right sinus of Valsalva (p < 0.01). Young's modulus, calculated as an indicator of elasticity, was significantly greater at the non-coronary sinus of Valsalva (430.7 ± 374.2kPa) than at either the left (190.6 ± 70.6kPa, p < 0.01) or right sinuses of Valsalva (240.0 ± 56.5kPa, p < 0.05). Based on the morphometrical and biomechanical analyses of the stentless bioprosthesis, we demonstrated that there are differences in wall thickness and elasticity between each sinus of Valsalva. These differences suggest that the non-coronary sinus of Valsalva is the most vulnerable and at greater risk of tissue failure. The exclusion of the non-coronary sinus of Valsalva may be beneficial to mitigate the long-term risks of tissue failure in the stentless bioprosthesis.

How to treat severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration of aortic surgical bioprosthesis: transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation or redo valve surgery?

The optimal management of aortic surgical bioprosthesis presenting with severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration is currently a matter of debate. Over the past 20 years, the number of implanted bioprostheses worldwide has been rapidly increasing at the expense of mechanical prostheses. A large proportion of patients, however, will require intervention for bioprosthesis structural valve deterioration. Current options for older patients who often have severe comorbidities include either transcatheter valve-in-valve (TVIV) implantation or redo valve surgery. The emergence of TVIV implantation, which is perceived to be less invasive than redo valve surgery, offers an effective alternative to surgery for these patients with proven safety and efficacy in high-risk patient groups including elderly and frail patients. A potential caveat to this strategy is that results of long-term follow-up after TVIV implantation are limited. Redo surgery is sometimes preferable, especially for young patients with a smaller-sized aortic bioprosthesis. With the emergence of TVIV implantation and the long experience of redo valve surgery, we currently have 2 complementary treatment modalities, allowing a tailor-made and patient-orientated intervention. In the heart team, the decision-making should be based on several factors including type of bioprosthesis failure, age, comorbidities, operative risk, anatomical factors, anticipated risks and benefits of each alternative, patient's choice and local experience. The aim of this review is to provide a framework for individualized optimal treatment strategies in patients with failed aortic surgical bioprosthesis.