Back to Search Start Over

Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type

Authors :
Uri Landes
Ilan Richter
Haim Danenberg
Ran Kornowski
Janarthanan Sathananthan
Ole De Backer
Lars Søndergaard
Mohamed Abdel-Wahab
Sung-Han Yoon
Raj R. Makkar
Holger Thiele
Won-Keun Kim
Christian Hamm
Nicola Buzzatti
Matteo Montorfano
Sebastian Ludwig
Niklas Schofer
Lisa Voigtlaender
Mayra Guerrero
Abdallah El Sabbagh
Josep Rodés-Cabau
Jules Mesnier
Taishi Okuno
Thomas Pilgrim
Claudia Fiorina
Antonio Colombo
Antonio Mangieri
Helene Eltchaninoff
Luis Nombela-Franco
Maarten P.H. Van Wiechen
Nicolas M. Van Mieghem
Didier Tchétché
Wolfgang H. Schoels
Matthias Kullmer
Marco Barbanti
Corrado Tamburino
Jan-Malte Sinning
Baravan Al-Kassou
Gidon Y. Perlman
Alfonso Ielasi
Chiara Fraccaro
Giuseppe Tarantini
Federico De Marco
Guy Witberg
Simon R. Redwood
John C. Lisko
Vasilis C. Babaliaros
Mika Laine
Roberto Nerla
Ariel Finkelstein
Amnon Eitan
Ronen Jaffe
Philipp Ruile
Franz J. Neumann
Nicolo Piazza
Horst Sievert
Kolja Sievert
Marco Russo
Martin Andreas
Matjaz Bunc
Azeem Latib
Sharon Bruoha
Rebecca Godfrey
David Hildick-Smith
Israel Barbash
Amit Segev
Pál Maurovich-Horvat
Balint Szilveszter
Konstantinos Spargias
Dionisis Aravadinos
Tamim M. Nazif
Martin B. Leon
John G. Webb
Cardiology
Source :
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 15(15), 1543-1554. Elsevier Inc.
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV. Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]). Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm2; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176). Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
19368798
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 15(15), 1543-1554. Elsevier Inc.
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....b31178664af602e5e02f72d66a638ffe