Acta Cardiol. 2025 Oct 28:1-12. doi: 10.1080/00015385.2025.2576446. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasingly used for the treatment of surgical bioprosthetic valve degeneration (sBVD).
METHODS: We investigated clinical outcomes and hemodynamic valve performance in all consecutive patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for sBVD in a single centre and assessed differences in patients who received a balloon-expandable (BEV) versus self-expandable valve (SEV) at 1, 6 and 12 months (m), and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: Between 25 November 2011 and 4 September 2023, 86 patients (mean age 80.3 ± 6.6y; 53.5% female; median STS score 5.1% (3.7%;8.6%) underwent ViV-TAVI with BEV (n = 53) or SEV (n = 33). Overall, the cumulative incidences of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 12 m were 7.4% (3.4%;15.8%) and 3.6% (0.9%; 9.3%), respectively (comparison of SEV versus BEV within the first year: p = 0.253 and p = 0.168, and comparison for the entire follow-up (median 2.6 (0.9;4.6) years): p = 0.962 and p = 0.942). Aortic valve area (AVA) and peak and mean transprosthetic gradients (TPG) improved significantly from baseline to 1, 6 and 12 m follow-up (p < 0.001 for all). Peak and mean TPG were 10.5 (1.8;19.2) and 7.1 (1.6;12.7) mmHg lower in SEV as compared with BEV at 1 m (p = 0.019 and 0.012, respectively). Similarly, AVA of SEV was 0.23 (0.03;0.44) and 0.54 (0.28;0.81) cm2 larger as compared with BEV at 1 and 6 m (p = 0.027 and p < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences in hemodynamic valve performance between BEV and SEV were observed during further follow-up.
CONCLUSION: ViV-TAVI is a safe and effective treatment for patients presenting sBVD. Improved hemodynamic valve performance with SEV over BEV observed during early follow-up did not translate into long-term lower mortality rates.
PMID:41147217 | DOI:10.1080/00015385.2025.2576446
