VARC-3 defined outcome of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stentless compared with stented aortic bioprostheses

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a viable alternative to redo surgery in selected patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Most ViV-TAVI procedures have been performed in stented bioprosthetic valves (ST); stentless bioprostheses (SL) lack fluoroscopic mar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical research in cardiology 2023-12
Main Authors: Steul, Jean-Honoré, Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed, Stankowski, Tomasz, Haussig, Stephan, Woitek, Felix J, Gasior, Tomasz, Crusius, Lisa, Knorr, Luise, Müller, Felicitas V, Fritzsche, Dirk, Kiefer, Philipp, Kappert, Utz, Holzhey, David, Linke, Axel, Mangner, Norman
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a viable alternative to redo surgery in selected patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Most ViV-TAVI procedures have been performed in stented bioprosthetic valves (ST); stentless bioprostheses (SL) lack fluoroscopic markers and could be more challenging for ViV-TAVI. Data on more recent patients applying Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined outcomes are scarce. We compared patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and 5-year mortality of patients with SL versus ST aortic bioprosthetic valve failure undergoing ViV-TAVI. Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI between 2007 and 2022 (52.5% of cases after 2015) at 3 German centers were included in this analysis. The co-primary outcome measures were technical success, device success, and early safety defined by VARC-3. Mortality was assessed up to 5 years. Overall, 43 (11.8%) SL and 313 (88.2%) ST ViV-TAVI were included. Patients were comparable with regard to age, sex, clinically relevant baseline comorbidities, and surgical risk. Technical success (SL: 83.7% versus ST: 79.9%, p = 0.552), device success (SL: 67.4% versus ST: 54.3%, p = 0.105), and early safety (SL: 74.4% versus ST: 66.5%, p = 0.296) were comparable between groups. The 30-day mortality (SL: 7.0% versus ST: 2.6%, p = 0.136) and 5-year mortality rates (SL: 23.3% versus ST: 24.6%, p = 0.874) were not significantly different between groups. SL and ST ViV-TAVI led to comparable short-term outcomes according to VARC-3- defined endpoints and similar mortality rates up to 5 years of follow-up. VARC-3 defined technical success, device success, and early safety as well as 5-year all-cause mortality in patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) into stentless (SL) compared with stented (ST) failed aortic bioprostheses.
ISSN:1861-0684
1861-0692
DOI:10.1007/s00392-023-02347-5