Dataset Information

Report on outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and redo surgical aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We sought to investigate real-world outcomes of patients with degenerated biological aortic valve prostheses who had undergone valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) or reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) in the Netherlands.

Methods

Patients who had undergone ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR for a degenerated biological aortic valve prosthesis in the Netherlands between January 2014 and December 2018 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients with a prior homograft, active endocarditis or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis were excluded. Patients were matched using the propensity score. The primary endpoint was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality at different time points, in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from the Netherlands Heart Registration.

Results

From 16 cardiac centres, 653 patients were included in the study (374 ViV-TAVI and 279 redo-SAVR). European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I) was higher in ViV-TAVI patients (19.4, interquartile range (IQR) 13.3-27.9 vs 13.8, IQR 8.3-21.9, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching, 165 patients were matched with acceptable covariate balance. In the matched cohorts, the primary endpoint was not significantly different for ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.02). Procedural, 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality rates, incidence of in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year were also similar between cohorts.

Conclusion

Patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR have similar mortality and morbidity.

SUBMITTER: van Steenbergen GJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8799804 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTranscatheter methods have been rapidly evolving to provide an alternative less invasive therapeutic option, mainly because redo patients often present with multiple comorbidities and high operative risk. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with transapical transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TA-TMVR) to conventional redo mitral valve replacement in patients presenting with degenerated biological mitral valve prostheses or failed valve annuloplasty.Methods and materialBetween March 2012 and November 2020, 74 consecutive high-risk patients underwent surgical redo mitral valve replacement (n = 33) or TA-TMVR (n = 41) at our institution. All patients presented with a history of a surgical mitral valve procedure. All transcatheter procedures were performed using the SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses. Data collection was prospectively according to MVARC criteria.ResultsThe mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of the whole cohort was 19.9±16.7%, and the median STS-score was 11.1±12.5%. The mean age in the SMVR group was 63.7±12.8 years and in the TMVR group 73.6±9.7 years. Patients undergoing TA-TMVR presented with significantly higher risk scores. Echocardiography at follow up showed no obstruction of the left ventricular outflow tract, no paravalvular leakage and excellent transvalvular gradients in both groups (3.9±1.2 mmHg and 4.2±0.8 mmHg in the surgical and transcatheter arm respectively). There was no difference in postoperative major adverse events between the groups with no strokes in the whole cohort. Both methods showed similar survival rates at one year and a 30-day mortality of 15.2% and 9.8% in SAVR and TMVR group, respectively. Despite using contrast dye in the transcatheter group, the rate of postoperative acute kidney failure was similar between the groups.ConclusionDespite several contraindications for surgery, we showed the non-inferiority of TA-TMVR compared to conventional surgical redo procedures in high-risk patients. With its excellent hemodynamic and similar survival rate, TA-TMVR offers a feasible alternative to the conventional surgical redo procedure in selected patients.

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.