Cargando…
Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter 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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10242565/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37288124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shj.2022.100106 |
_version_ | 1785054241482604544 |
---|---|
author | Hecht, Sébastien Zenses, Anne-Sophie Bernard, Jérémy Tastet, Lionel Côté, Nancy de Freitas Campos Guimarães, Leonardo Paradis, Jean-Michel Beaudoin, Jonathan O’Connor, Kim Bernier, Mathieu Dumont, Eric Kalavrouziotis, Dimitri Delarochellière, Robert Mohammadi, Siamak Clavel, Marie-Annick Rodés-Cabau, Josep Salaun, Erwan Pibarot, Philippe |
author_facet | Hecht, Sébastien Zenses, Anne-Sophie Bernard, Jérémy Tastet, Lionel Côté, Nancy de Freitas Campos Guimarães, Leonardo Paradis, Jean-Michel Beaudoin, Jonathan O’Connor, Kim Bernier, Mathieu Dumont, Eric Kalavrouziotis, Dimitri Delarochellière, Robert Mohammadi, Siamak Clavel, Marie-Annick Rodés-Cabau, Josep Salaun, Erwan Pibarot, Philippe |
author_sort | Hecht, Sébastien |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Transcatheter 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. OBJECTIVE: This 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: ViV-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). CONCLUSIONS: ViV-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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10242565 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102425652023-06-07 Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Hecht, Sébastien Zenses, Anne-Sophie Bernard, Jérémy Tastet, Lionel Côté, Nancy de Freitas Campos Guimarães, Leonardo Paradis, Jean-Michel Beaudoin, Jonathan O’Connor, Kim Bernier, Mathieu Dumont, Eric Kalavrouziotis, Dimitri Delarochellière, Robert Mohammadi, Siamak Clavel, Marie-Annick Rodés-Cabau, Josep Salaun, Erwan Pibarot, Philippe Struct Heart Original Research BACKGROUND: Transcatheter 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. OBJECTIVE: This 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: ViV-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). CONCLUSIONS: ViV-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. Elsevier 2022-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10242565/ /pubmed/37288124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shj.2022.100106 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Hecht, Sébastien Zenses, Anne-Sophie Bernard, Jérémy Tastet, Lionel Côté, Nancy de Freitas Campos Guimarães, Leonardo Paradis, Jean-Michel Beaudoin, Jonathan O’Connor, Kim Bernier, Mathieu Dumont, Eric Kalavrouziotis, Dimitri Delarochellière, Robert Mohammadi, Siamak Clavel, Marie-Annick Rodés-Cabau, Josep Salaun, Erwan Pibarot, Philippe Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve |
title | Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve |
title_full | Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve |
title_fullStr | Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve |
title_full_unstemmed | Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve |
title_short | Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes in Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve |
title_sort | hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in redo-surgical aortic valve replacement vs. transcatheter valve-in-valve |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10242565/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37288124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shj.2022.100106 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hechtsebastien hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT zensesannesophie hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT bernardjeremy hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT tastetlionel hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT cotenancy hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT defreitascamposguimaraesleonardo hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT paradisjeanmichel hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT beaudoinjonathan hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT oconnorkim hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT berniermathieu hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT dumonteric hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT kalavrouziotisdimitri hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT delarochelliererobert hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT mohammadisiamak hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT clavelmarieannick hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT rodescabaujosep hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT salaunerwan hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve AT pibarotphilippe hemodynamicandclinicaloutcomesinredosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementvstranscathetervalveinvalve |