Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves
- PMID: 25005653
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.7246
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves
Abstract
Importance: Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed.
Objective: To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves.
Design, setting, and participants: Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves.
Main outcomes and measures: Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class.
Results: Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008).
Conclusions and relevance: In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.
Similar articles
-
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry.Circulation. 2012 Nov 6;126(19):2335-44. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.104505. Epub 2012 Oct 10. Circulation. 2012. PMID: 23052028
-
Use of transcatheter heart valves for a valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthesis: technical considerations and results.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Dec;144(6):1372-9; discussion 1379-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.104. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012. PMID: 23140962
-
Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for patients with degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valves.Curr Probl Cardiol. 2014 Jan;39(1):7-27. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2013.10.001. Epub 2013 Oct 24. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2014. PMID: 24331437 Review.
-
Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve-in-Valve Implantation for Failed Surgical Bioprosthetic Valves: An 8-Year Single-Center Experience.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Nov;8(13):1735-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Oct 14. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015. PMID: 26476608
-
What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Jun;20(6):837-43. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv037. Epub 2015 Mar 8. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015. PMID: 25754372 Review.
Cited by
-
Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Valvular Cardiogenic Shock.JACC Adv. 2024 Oct 4;3(11):101303. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101303. eCollection 2024 Nov. JACC Adv. 2024. PMID: 39429239 Free PMC article.
-
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement is Ready for Most Low-risk Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Card Fail Rev. 2024 Sep 13;10:e11. doi: 10.15420/cfr.2023.23. eCollection 2024. Card Fail Rev. 2024. PMID: 39386082 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Emergency and Prophylactic Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Small Surgical Bioprosthesis: A Report of Four Cases.Cureus. 2024 Aug 15;16(8):e66964. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66964. eCollection 2024 Aug. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39280552 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of four aortic bioprostheses: Hancock II vs. St Jude Trifecta vs. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna vs. Magna Ease-mid-term results (COMPARE SAVR study).J Thorac Dis. 2024 Aug 31;16(8):5018-5030. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-1761. Epub 2024 Aug 28. J Thorac Dis. 2024. PMID: 39268099 Free PMC article.
-
Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedures: Challenges and Future Directions.J Clin Med. 2024 Aug 12;13(16):4723. doi: 10.3390/jcm13164723. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39200865 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources

