Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Self-expandable transcatheter valve is a potentially useful option for a failing small surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve.

Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve bio-prosthesis has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement. However, the correlation between the size of the failing surgical aortic valve and the occurrence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after trans-catheter implantation is still controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and report the results in Japanese patients. Thirty patients who underwent trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed with results from echocardiography and computed tomography. The patients' mean age was 84.5 ± 4.8years. The mean body surface area was 1.42 ± 0.13 m2. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the size of the failing bio-prosthesis: small (≦19mm) and large (> 19mm). There were no significant differences in mean pressure gradient (12.2 ± 4.0mmHg vs. 11.1 ± 1.2mmHg; p = 0.54) and effective orifice area index (1.00 ± 0.26cm2/m2 vs. 0.99 ± 0.25cm2/m2; p = 0.92) between the groups at 6months after trans-catheter implantation. The incidence of moderate (38.5% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.59) and severe (0% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.33) prosthesis-patient mismatch was equivalent. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test p-value = 0.08). Trans-catheter implantation inside a failing small aortic valve did not increase the frequency of prosthesis-patient mismatch in this Japanese cohort.

Transcatheter or Surgical Replacement for Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

The use of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been rapidly expanding as an alternative treatment to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for failed bioprosthetic valves despite limited long-term data. To assess mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing intervention for failed bioprosthetic SAVR. This was a retrospective population-based cohort analysis conducted between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, with a median (IQR) follow-up time of 2.3 (1.1-4.0) years. A total of 1771 patients with a history of bioprosthetic SAVR who underwent ViV-TAVR or redo SAVR in California, New York, and New Jersey were included. Data were obtained from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information, the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, and the New Jersey Discharge Data Collection System. Exclusion criteria included undergoing TAVR or redo SAVR within 5 years from initial SAVR, as well as infective endocarditis, concomitant surgical procedures, and out-of-state residency. Propensity matching yielded 375 patient pairs. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023. ViV-TAVR vs redo SAVR. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, heart failure hospitalization, reoperation, major bleeding, acute kidney failure, new pacemaker insertion, and infective endocarditis. From 2015 through 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing ViV-TAVR vs redo SAVR increased from 159 of 451 (35.3%) to 498 or 797 (62.5%). Of 1771 participants, 653 (36.9%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 74.4 (11.3) years. Periprocedural mortality and stroke rates were similar between propensity-matched groups. The ViV-TAVR group had lower periprocedural rates of major bleeding (2.4% vs 5.1%; P = .05), acute kidney failure (1.3% vs 7.2%; P < .001), and new pacemaker implantations (3.5% vs 10.9%; P < .001). The 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 23.4% (95% CI, 15.7-34.1) in the ViV-TAVR group and 13.3% (95% CI, 9.2-18.9) in the redo SAVR group. In a landmark analysis, no difference in mortality was observed up to 2 years (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.78), but after 2 years, ViV-TAVR was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.18-7.47) as well as with a higher incidence of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.57-9.22). There were no differences in 5-year incidence of stroke, reoperation, major bleeding, or infective endocarditis. Compared with redo SAVR, ViV-TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of periprocedural complications and a similar incidence of all-cause mortality through 2 years' follow-up. However, ViV-TAVR was associated with higher rates of late mortality and heart failure hospitalization. These findings may be influenced by residual confounding and require adjudication in a randomized clinical trial.

Recent outcomes of surgical redo aortic valve replacement in prosthetic valve failure.

As redo surgical aortic valve replacement(AVR) is relatively high risk, valve-in-valve transcatheter AVR has emerged as an alternative for failed prostheses. However, the majority of studies are outdated. This study assessed the current clinical outcomes of redo AVR. This study enrolled 324 patients who underwent redo AVR due to prosthetic valve failure from 2010 to 2021 in four tertiary centers. The primary outcome was operative mortality. The secondary outcomes were overall survival, cardiac death, and aortic valve-related events. Logistic regression analysis, clustered Cox proportional hazards models, and competing risk analysis were used to evaluate the independent risk factors. Redo AVR was performed in 242 patients without endocarditis and 82 patients with endocarditis. Overall operative mortality was 4.6% (15 deaths). Excluding patients with endocarditis, the operative mortality of redo AVR decreased to 2.5%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that endocarditis (HR 3.990, P=0.014), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR 1.006, P=0.037) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR 0.956, P=0.034) were risk factors of operative mortality. Endocarditis and lower LVEF were independent predictors of overall survival. The relatively high risk of redo AVR was due to reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis. The outcomes of redo AVR for non-endocarditis are excellent. Our findings suggest that patients without endocarditis, especially with acceptable LVEF, can be treated safely with redo AVR.

Cardiac Surgery After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Trends and Outcomes

BackgroundReports of cardiac operations after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and early TAVR explantation are increasing. The purpose of this report is to document trends and outcomes of cardiac surgery after initial TAVR. MethodsThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database was queried for all adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery after a previously placed TAVR between January 2012 and March 2023. This identified an overall cohort and 2 subcohorts: nonaortic valve operations and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after previous TAVR. Cohorts were examined with descriptive statistics, trend analyses, and 30-day outcomes. ResultsOf 5457 patients who were identified, 2485 (45.5%) underwent non-SAVR cardiac surgery, and 2972 (54.5%) underwent SAVR. The frequency of cardiac surgery after TAVR increased 4235.3% overall and 144.6% per year throughout the study period. The incidence of operative mortality and stroke were 15.5% and 4.5%, respectively. Existing The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk models performed poorly, because observed-to-expected mortality ratios were significantly >1.0. Among those undergoing SAVR after TAVR, increasing preoperative surgical urgency, age, dialysis, need for SAVR, and concomitant procedures were associated with increased mortality, whereas type of TAVR explant was not. ConclusionsThe need for cardiac surgery, including redo SAVR after TAVR, is increasing rapidly. Risks are higher, and outcomes are worse than predicted. These data should closely inform heart team decisions if TAVR is considered at lowering age and risk profiles in the absence of longitudinal evidence.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan–Meier–Derived Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls.

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Abstract 17214: Sex Difference in Outcomes of Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (redo-SAVR) for Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Insights From the National Inpatient Sample

Introduction: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains the gold standard for the management of failed bioprosthetic valves (BV). We aim to determine if there are sex differences in in-hospital outcomes among patients who underwent redo-SAVR for failed BV. Methods: We obtained the data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2013-2020. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included acute stroke, acute myocardial infarction (MI), acute kidney injury post-operative bleeding and blood transfusion. (See figure 1). Multivariable regression analyses were done to adjust for confounders. Results: There were more men who underwent the procedure compared to women. (62.3% versus 37.7%, p&lt;0.001) Hypertension, coronary artery disease and smoking were commonly seen among men. Obesity is more common among women. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality. Men were less likely than women to have vascular complications (adjusted odd ratio (aOR) 0.63, p&lt;0.005; acute kidney injury aOR 0.63, p&lt; 0.01, and acute stroke (aOR 0.6, p&lt; 0.002). Conclusions: Men underwent more redo-SAVR procedures than women. There were no sex difference in in-hospital outcomes, however, men were less likely to have AKI, stroke and vascular complications from the procedure. Further research is needed to explore these sex disparities.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement.

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n=57), ViV-TAVR (n=31) and redo-sutureless (n=25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p=0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Trends in SAVR with biological vs. mechanical valves in middle-aged patients: results from a French large multi-centric survey.

Currently, despite continued issues with durability ( 1), biological prosthetic valves are increasingly chosen over mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in adult patients of all ages, at least in Western countries. For younger patients, this choice means assuming the risks associated with a redo SAVR or valve-in-valve procedure. To assess the use of mechanical vs. biological valve prostheses for SAVR relative to patient's age and implant time in a large population extracted from the French National Database EPICARD. Patients in EPICARD undergoing SAVR from 2007 to 2022 were included from 22 participating public or private centers chosen to represent a balanced representation of centre sizes and geographical discrepancies. Patients with associated pathology of the aorta (aneurysm or dissection) and requiring a vascular aortic prosthesis were excluded. Comparisons were made amongst centers, valve choice, implant date range, and patient age. We considered 101,070 valvular heart disease patients and included 72,375 SAVR (mean age 71.4 ± 12.2 years). We observed a mechanical vs. biological prosthesis ratio (MBPR) of 0.14 for the overall population. Before 50 years old (y-o), MBPR was >1.3 (p < 0.001) while patients above 60 years-old received principally biological SAVR (p < 0.0001). Concerning patients between 50 and 60 years-old patients, MPVR was 1.04 (p = 0.03). Patients 50-60 years-old from the first and second study duration quartile (before August 2015) received preferentially mechanical SAVR (p < 0.001). We observed a shift towards more biological SAVR (p < 0.001) for patients from the third and fourth quartile to reach a MBPR at 0.43 during the last years of the series. Incidentally, simultaneous mitral valve replacement were more common in case of mechanical SAVR (p < 0.0001), while associated CABGs were more frequent in case of biological SAVR (p < 0.0001). In a large contemporary French patient population, real world practice showed a recent shift towards a lower age-threshold for biological SAVR as compared to what would suggest contemporary guidelines.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus isolated redo surgical aortic valve replacement

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). MethodsThis was a retrospective study using institutional databases of transcatheter (2013-2022) and surgical (2011-2022) aortic valve replacements. Patients who underwent ViV TAVR were compared with patients who underwent redo isolated SAVR. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for heart failure readmissions. ResultsA total of 4200 TAVRs and 2306 isolated SAVRs were performed. Of these, there were 198 patients who underwent ViV TAVR and 147 patients who underwent redo SAVR. Operative mortality was 2% in each group, but observed to expected operative mortality in the redo SAVR group was higher than in the ViV TAVR group (1.2 vs 0.32). Those who underwent redo SAVR were more likely to require transfusions and reoperation for bleeding, to have new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis, and to require a permanent pacemaker postoperatively than those in the ViV group. Mean gradient was significantly lower in the redo SAVR group than in the ViV group at 30 days and 1 year. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1 year were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ViV TAVR was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death compared with redo SAVR (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.65-2.99; P = .40). Competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for heart-failure readmissions were higher in the ViV cohort. ConclusionsViV TAVR and redo SAVR were associated with comparable mortality. Patients who underwent redo SAVR had lower postoperative mean gradients and greater freedom from heart failure readmissions, but they also had more postoperative complications than the VIV group, despite their lower baseline risk profiles.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49-3.03; p &lt; 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78-1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40-0.67; p &lt; 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29-3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18-0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke after cardiac surgery.

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) can be a catastrophic complication of cardiac surgery previously without effective treatment. Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is a potentially life-saving intervention. We examined patients at our institution who had EVT to treat AIS post cardiac surgery. We retrospectively reviewed a stroke database from January 1, 2016 to October 31, 2021 to identify patients who had undergone EVT to treat AIS following cardiac surgery. Demographic data, operation type, stroke severity, imaging features, management and outcomes (mortality and modified Rankin Score (mRS)) were assessed. Of 5022 consecutive patients with AIS, 870 underwent EVT. Seven patients (0.8%) had EVT following cardiac surgery. Operations varied: two coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), two transcatheter AVR, one redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), one mitral valve repair and one patient with combined aortic and mitral valve replacements and CABG. Meantime postsurgery to stroke symptoms onset was 3 days (range 0-9 days). Median NIHSS was 26 (range 10-32). Five patients had middle cerebral artery occlusion and two internal carotid artery (n = 2). Median time between onset of symptoms and recanalization was 157 min (range 97-263). Two patients received Intra-arterial Thrombolysis. All patients survived and were discharged to another hospital (n = 3), home (n = 2), or rehabilitation facility (n = 2). Median 3-month mRS was 3 (range 0-6). We report the largest case series of EVT after cardiac surgery. EVT can be associated with excellent outcomes in these patients. Close neurological monitoring postoperatively to identify patients who may benefit from intervention is key.

Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve

BackgroundTranscatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures. ResultsViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%, p < 0.001) at 30 days, which was essentially driven by a higher rate (56.2% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.001) of high residual gradient (mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg). Despite a trend for higher 30-day mortality in the Redo-SAVR vs. ViV-TAVR group (8.7% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 3.70 [0.77-17.6]; p = 0.10), the long-term mortality was significantly lower (24.2% vs. 50.1% at 8 years; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.48 [0.26-0.91]; p = 0.03) in the Redo-SAVR group. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, Redo-SAVR remained significantly associated with reduced long-term mortality compared with ViV-TAVR (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.22-0.46]; p < 0.001). ConclusionsViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.

TCT-517 Late Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier–Derived Individual Patient Data of Matched Studies

TCT-517 Late Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier–Derived Individual Patient Data of Matched Studies

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial. A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%). Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Early- and mid-term outcomes following redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with previous transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

The aim of this study was to analyse the early- and mid-term outcomes after redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with previous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Retrospective single-centre analysis of early- and mid-term outcomes following redo SAVR in patients with previous TAVI between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and mid-term survival. During the study period, a total of 5756 patients underwent TAVI. Among them, 28 (0.5%) patients required redo SAVR after TAVI. During periods 2013-2016 and 2017-2020, 4/2184 (0.2%) patients and 24/3572 (0.7%) patients required SAVR after TAVI, respectively. The median logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher at the time of SAVR than at the time of the index TAVI (5.9% vs 11.6%; P < 0.001). The median elapsed time between TAVI and redo SAVR was 7 months (3.5-14 months). Infective endocarditis (IE) was the most frequent indication for surgery [19 (67.8%) patients]. A total of 11 (39.3%) patients underwent isolated SAVR and 17 (60.7%) SAVR + additional cardiac surgical procedures. The overall in-hospital mortality was 14.3% (4/28). In-hospital mortality was 15.8% (3/19) among IE patients and 11.1% (1/9) among non-IE patients (P = 0.7). Overall estimated survival was 66.5%, 59.9% and 48.0% at 12, 18 and 24 months, respectively. Patients with IE showed a trend towards a lower estimated mid-term survival compared to non-IE patients [41.6% (95% confidence interval: 22.0-78.0%) vs 58.3% (95% confidence interval: 30.0-100%) survival at 24 months (P = 0.3)]. SAVR can be successfully performed in patients with prior TAVI despite the increased surgical risk and technical difficulty. IE is associated with decreased mid-term survival.

Early- and mid-term outcomes of reinterventions for aortic bioprosthesis failure.

The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term results of our actual practice embedding redo aortic valve replacement and transcatheter procedures for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Data for aortic valve reinterventions (redo surgical aortic valve replacement, isolated redo aortic valve replacement, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure) were collected (2010-2019). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors favouring the choice of transcatheter against redo surgery. Cox analysis was used to study the association of preoperative variables with survival. Survival probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a log-rank test. A total of 125 patients were included (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 84 patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41 patients). Median age was 74 [63-80] years, 58% of the patients were male and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 15 [8-26] %. There was no early mortality. Eighteen patients (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 15, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3) sustained at least one postoperative complication. At pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation had significantly higher trans-prosthetic gradients (mean gradient: valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation 18 mmHg vs. redo surgical aortic valve replacement 14 mmHg, p < 0.001). Overall survival probabilities were 94% and 73% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Previous coronary artery bypass surgery operation and age were independently associated with lower survival probabilities during the follow-up. Redo surgical aortic valve replacement and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation are both safe and effective for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Further valve-in-valve data are needed to determine the haemodynamic performance of transcatheter prostheses and its impact on long-term outcomes.

Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Valves and Adjunctive Therapies

While redo surgical aortic valve replacement has traditionally been the gold standard for the treatment of failed surgical valves, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable, less invasive option with the potential for improved short-term morbidity and mortality. Retrospective registry data regarding ViV TAVR outcomes have been encouraging, with excellent 1-year mortality, and sustained valve performance and quality of life improvement out to 3 years. Operators must be comfortable with CT analysis for procedural planning, and be able to identify and troubleshoot patients who are at risk for coronary obstruction and patient prosthesis mismatch. The authors provide a review of clinical outcomes associated with ViV TAVR, procedural planning recommendations, and strategies to overcome technical challenges that can occur during ViV TAVR.

Octogenarians needing reoperative aortic valve surgery-Does one size fit all?

Early and midterm outcomes, rather than long-term outcomes, are perhaps more relevant in octogenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or redo-surgical aortic valve replacement. Considering that early and midterm outcomes are similar with both the interventions, TAVR appears to be an attractive option in these patients. However, decision-making should consider other factors like presence of porcelain aorta, or severe primary mitral regurgitation among others that may influence the strategy to be adopted. The philosophy of shared decision making, and heart team consultation is, therefore, ever most relevant in these high-risk and vulnerable groups of patients. The recommendations rather than being universal must be individualized based on the type of previous surgery carried out, need for isolated AVR or concomitant surgery, co-morbid conditions, available expertise, and patient choice.