Original Article on TAVI
Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting
Abstract
Background: Due to a considerable rise in bioprosthetic as opposed to mechanical valve implantations, an increase of patients presenting with failing bioprosthetic surgical valves in need of a reoperation is to be expected. Redo surgery may pose a high-risk procedure. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an innovative, less-invasive treatment alternative for these patients. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the outcome of consecutive patients after a valve-in-valve TAVI [transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV)] as compared to a standard reoperation [surgical aortic valve redo-operation (SAV-in-SAV)] has not yet been performed. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes after TAV-in-SAV and SAV-in-SAV in a single center setting.
Methods: All SAV-in-SAV and TAV-in-SAV patients from January 2001 to October 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with previous mechanical or transcatheter valves, active endocarditis and concomitant cardiac procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, preoperative data, post-procedural complications, and 30-day mortality were collected from a designated database. Mean values ± SD were calculated for all continuous variables. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using the t-test for independent samples. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: A total of 102 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 50 patients (49%) underwent a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure, while 52 patients (51%) underwent redo-surgery. Patients in the TAV-in-SAV group were significantly older, had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE and exhibited a lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction than patients in the SAV-in-SAV group (78.1±6.7 vs. 66.2±13.1, P<0.001; 27.4±18.7 vs. 14.4±10, P<0.001; and 49.8±13.1 vs. 56.7±15.8, P=0.019 respectively). Postoperative pacemaker implantation and chest tube output were higher in the SAV-in-SAV group compared to the TAV-in-SAV group [11 (21%) vs. 3 (6%), P=0.042 and 0.9±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.9, P=0.047, respectively]. There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke or dialysis postoperatively. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups [TAV-in-SAV2 (4%) vs. SAV-in-SAV0, P=0.238]. Kaplan-Meier (KM) 1-year survival was significantly lower in the TAV-in-SAV group than in the SAV-in-SAV group (83% vs. 96%, P<0.001).
Conclusions: The present investigation shows that both groups, irrespective of different baseline comorbidities, show very good early clinical outcomes. While redo surgery is still the standard of care, a subgroup of patients may profit from the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure.
Methods: All SAV-in-SAV and TAV-in-SAV patients from January 2001 to October 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with previous mechanical or transcatheter valves, active endocarditis and concomitant cardiac procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, preoperative data, post-procedural complications, and 30-day mortality were collected from a designated database. Mean values ± SD were calculated for all continuous variables. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. Continuous variables were compared using the t-test for independent samples. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: A total of 102 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 50 patients (49%) underwent a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure, while 52 patients (51%) underwent redo-surgery. Patients in the TAV-in-SAV group were significantly older, had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE and exhibited a lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction than patients in the SAV-in-SAV group (78.1±6.7 vs. 66.2±13.1, P<0.001; 27.4±18.7 vs. 14.4±10, P<0.001; and 49.8±13.1 vs. 56.7±15.8, P=0.019 respectively). Postoperative pacemaker implantation and chest tube output were higher in the SAV-in-SAV group compared to the TAV-in-SAV group [11 (21%) vs. 3 (6%), P=0.042 and 0.9±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.9, P=0.047, respectively]. There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction, stroke or dialysis postoperatively. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups [TAV-in-SAV2 (4%) vs. SAV-in-SAV0, P=0.238]. Kaplan-Meier (KM) 1-year survival was significantly lower in the TAV-in-SAV group than in the SAV-in-SAV group (83% vs. 96%, P<0.001).
Conclusions: The present investigation shows that both groups, irrespective of different baseline comorbidities, show very good early clinical outcomes. While redo surgery is still the standard of care, a subgroup of patients may profit from the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure.
