Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV‐TAVI) versus redo—Surgical aortic valve replacement (redo‐SAVR): A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Nalluri, Nikhil; Atti, Varunsiri; Munir, Abdullah B.; Karam, Boutros; Patel, Nileshkumar; Kumar, Varun; Vemula, Praveen Kumar; Edla, Sushruth; Asti, Deepak; Paturu, Amrutha; Gayam, Sriramya; Spagnola, Jonathan; Barsoum, Emad; Maniatis, Gregory; Tamburrino, Frank; Kandov, Ruben; Lafferty, James; Kliger, Chad

doi:10.1111/joic.12520

Cited by 76 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reinöhl et al reported that the substantial risk of bleeding was two times more frequent in redo-SAVR patients [ 15 ]. Likewise, Nalluri et al reported the risk of major bleeding in redo-TAVR versus redo-SAVR to be 25.1% and 9.1%, respectively ( p ≤ 0.0001) [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Latif

Lateef

Ahsan

et al. 2020

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of prior cardiac surgery has increased. Prior cardiac surgery increases the risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. To evaluate the impact of prior cardiac surgery on clinical endpoints in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The clinical endpoints included in our study were 30-day mortality, 1–2-year mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, stroke, procedural time, and duration of hospital stay. Seven studies, which included a total of 8221 patients, were selected. Our study found that TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of stroke and bleeding complications. There was no significant difference in terms of AKI, 30-day all-cause mortality, and 1–2-year all-cause mortality between the two groups. The average procedure time and duration of hospital stay were 170 min less (p ≤ 0.01) and 3.6 days shorter (p < 0.01) in patients with TAVR, respectively. In patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft and severe AS, both TAVR and SAVR are reasonable options. However, TAVR may be associated with a lower incidence of complications like stroke and perioperative bleeding, in addition to a shorter length of stay.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Latif

Lateef

Ahsan

et al. 2020

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The complexity of valve choice for SAVR should also be considered as the untested durability of newer generation, rapid deployment or sutureless aortic valves, relative to standard techniques for time-tested prostheses with long lasting success is unmatched. While a recent meta-analysis showed that ViV-TAVR is a good proven redo option for patients with failed bioprosthetic valves whom are considered high-risk [17]; it is not as clear for a patient that is low-or even intermediate-risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Structural Deterioration of a Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sutureless bioprosthetic valves such as the Sorin Perceval S valve (SPV) have been used in patients with aortic stenosis that require surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These prostheses have been marketed on the basis of their rapid implantation techniques with avoidance of sutures and reduced aortic cross-clamp times. We report a case of an early failure of a SPV nearly 4 years after implantation in a 58-year-old woman who was low-risk. While the patient's symptoms initially improved with SAVR with a sutureless bioprosthetic valve, they progressively worsened as the valve degraded, and the leaflets became increasingly calcified and stenotic ultimately, requiring reoperative SAVR with a St. Jude mechanical valve. This case raises the issue of the lack of much-needed data describing the long-term durability and hemodynamic performance of these valves, particularly in a low-risk patient with excellent functional status. We hope to shed further insight into the lack of long-term studies on patients with SPV to assess their longevity and long-term effectiveness, as well as elucidation of possible prevention and monitoring of these potential complications. The use of newer generation prostheses, although attractive for their ease of implantation, potentially carries higher long-term risk due to shorter durability leading to reintervention to address valve deterioration. This is especially true in low-risk patients who are young and active. Cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies need to develop a universal registry with follow-up of all valves in order to track and study the durability of these valves, and to evaluate for incidence of known and potential complications.

show abstract

“…However, bioprosthesis degenerates, requiring reoperation, which remains a relatively high risk. The evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has enabled a safe and feasible alternative, the transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure, which is less invasive than conventional redo surgery and has comparable outcomes [2][3][4][5][6]. Considering the possibility of future transcatheter VIV, the trend of increasing use of bioprostheses in surgical AVR is likely to persist, and the need of aortic VIV is expected to grow exponentially in the future.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lee

Chou

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV‐TAVI) versus redo—Surgical aortic valve replacement (redo‐SAVR): A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: Our results reiterate the safety and feasibility of ViV-TAVI for failed aortic BP valves in patients deemed to be at high risk for surgery. VIV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation with a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak.

Cited by 76 publications

References 47 publications

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Early Structural Deterioration of a Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About