Search

Background: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatments for aortic bioprosthesis failure. Clinical comparison of both therapies remains limited by the number of patients analyzed.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of VIV TAVR versus redo SAVR at a nationwide level in France.Methods: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for patients treated for aortic bioprosthesis failure with isolated VIV TAVR or redo SAVR between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes.Results: A total of 4,327 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 717 patients were analyzed in each arm. At 30 days, VIV TAVR was associated with lower rates of the composite of all-cause mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, and major or life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.88; p = 0.03). During follow-up (median 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the 2 groups (odds ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 1.41; p = 0.26). Rehospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were more frequently reported in the VIV TAVR group. A time-dependent interaction between all-cause and cardiovascular mortality following VIV TAVR was reported (p-interaction <0.05).Conclusions: VIV TAVR was observed to be associated with better short-term outcomes than redo SAVR. Major cardiovascular outcomes were not different between the 2 treatments during long-term follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two competing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are currently available. Head-to-head comparisons of the relative performances of these 2 devices have been published. However, long-term clinical outcome evaluation remains limited by the number of patients analyzed, in particular, for recent-generation devices.Methods: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with a TAVR device commercialized in France between 2014 and 2018. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes during follow-up. The objective of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TAVR according to Sapien 3 balloon-expandable (BE) versus Evolut R self-expanding TAVR technology at a nationwide level in France.Results: A total of 31 113 patients treated with either Sapien 3 BE or Evolut R self-expanding TAVR were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 20 918 patients were analyzed (10 459 in each group with BE or self-expanding valves). During follow-up (mean [SD], 358 [384]; median [interquartile range], 232 [10-599] days), BE TAVR was associated with a lower yearly incidence of all-cause death (relative risk, 0.88; corrected P=0.005), cardiovascular death (relative risk, 0.82; corrected P=0.002), and rehospitalization for heart failure (relative risk, 0.84; corrected P<0.0001). BE TAVR was also associated with lower rates of pacemaker implantation after the procedure (relative risk, 0.72; corrected P<0.0001).Conclusions: On the basis of the largest cohort available, we observed that Sapien 3 BE valves were associated with lower rates of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, rehospitalization for heart failure, and pacemaker implantation after a TAVR procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]