Dataset Information

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome.

ABSTRACT: Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve-in-TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher-risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Clinical and procedural data of patients who underwent ViTAVR at 3 sites in the United States and Germany were retrospectively compared with data of patients who underwent ViSAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. A total of 99 consecutive patients, 52.5% women, with a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 7.2 were identified. Seventy-four patients (74.7%) underwent ViSAVR, and 25 patients (25.3%) underwent ViTAVR. Balloon-expandable devices were used in 72.7%. ViSAVR patients presented with smaller index devices (21.0 versus 26.0 mm median true internal diameter; P<0.001). Significantly better postprocedural hemodynamics (median prosthesis mean gradient, 12.5 [interquartile range, 8.8-16.2] versus 16.0 [interquartile range, 13.0-20.5] mm Hg; P=0.045) were observed for ViTAVR compared with the ViSAVR. Device success, however, was not different (79.2% and 66.2% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively; P=0.35), as were rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7% versus 5.4%; P=0.1). One-year-mortality was 9.4% and 13.4% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively (log-rank P=0.38). Conclusions Compared with ViSAVR, ViTAVR provides acceptable outcomes, with slightly better hemodynamics, similar device success rates, and similar 1-year mortality.

SUBMITTER: Raschpichler MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7660709 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome.

Raschpichler Matthias C MC Woitek Felix F Chakravarty Tarun T Flint Nir N Yoon Sung-Han SH Mangner Norman N Patel Chinar G CG Singh Chetana C Kashif Mohammad M Kiefer Philip P Holzhey David D Linke Axel A Stachel Georg G Thiele Holger H Borger Michael A MA Makkar Raj R RR

Journal of the American Heart Association 20200709 14

Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve-in-TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher-risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Clinical and procedural data of pa ...[more]

PMID: 32646262

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra-annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self-expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure. Methods and Results Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology-Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty-day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types (P=0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all-cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all-cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all-cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all-cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%). Conclusions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self-expandable supra-annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresThe associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined.ResultsAmong the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.

Dataset Information

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome.

Publications

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets