VARC-3 defined outcome of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stentless compared with stented aortic bioprostheses
Background Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a viable alternative to redo surgery in selected patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Most ViV-TAVI procedures have been performed in stented bioprosthetic valves (ST); stentless bioprostheses (SL) lack fluor...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | Clinical research in cardiology Ročník 114; číslo 3; s. 291 - 301 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
Berlin/Heidelberg
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
01.03.2025
Springer Nature B.V |
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1861-0684, 1861-0692, 1861-0692 |
| On-line prístup: | Získať plný text |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Shrnutí: | Background
Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a viable alternative to redo surgery in selected patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Most ViV-TAVI procedures have been performed in stented bioprosthetic valves (ST); stentless bioprostheses (SL) lack fluoroscopic markers and could be more challenging for ViV-TAVI. Data on more recent patients applying Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined outcomes are scarce. We compared patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and 5-year mortality of patients with SL versus ST aortic bioprosthetic valve failure undergoing ViV-TAVI.
Methods
Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI between 2007 and 2022 (52.5% of cases after 2015) at 3 German centers were included in this analysis. The co-primary outcome measures were technical success, device success, and early safety defined by VARC-3. Mortality was assessed up to 5 years.
Results
Overall, 43 (11.8%) SL and 313 (88.2%) ST ViV-TAVI were included. Patients were comparable with regard to age, sex, clinically relevant baseline comorbidities, and surgical risk.
Technical success (SL: 83.7% versus ST: 79.9%,
p
= 0.552), device success (SL: 67.4% versus ST: 54.3%,
p
= 0.105), and early safety (SL: 74.4% versus ST: 66.5%,
p
= 0.296) were comparable between groups. The 30-day mortality (SL: 7.0% versus ST: 2.6%,
p
= 0.136) and 5-year mortality rates (SL: 23.3% versus ST: 24.6%,
p
= 0.874) were not significantly different between groups.
Conclusion
SL and ST ViV-TAVI led to comparable short-term outcomes according to VARC-3- defined endpoints and similar mortality rates up to 5 years of follow-up.
Graphical abstract
VARC-3 defined technical success, device success, and early safety as well as 5-year all-cause mortality in patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) into stentless (SL) compared with stented (ST) failed aortic bioprostheses. |
|---|---|
| Bibliografia: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 1861-0684 1861-0692 1861-0692 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00392-023-02347-5 |