Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: An updated meta‐analysis comparing midterm outcomes
Abhishek Thandra, Waiel Abusnina, Aravdeep Jhand, Kashif Shaikh, Raahat Bansal, Venkata Siva Kumar Pajjuru, Ahmad Al‐Abdouh, Arun Kanmanthareddy, Venkata Alla
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) are the two treatment strategies available for patients with severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. Herein, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing both early and mid-term outcomes of ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve disease. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane reviews, and Google scholar electronic databases were searched and studies comparing ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR were included. The primary outcome of interest was mid-term (1-5 years) and 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included were 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, pacemaker implantation, stroke, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, and postprocedural aortic valve gradients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all outcomes using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine observational studies with a total of 2,891 individuals and mean follow-up of 26 months met the inclusion criteria. There is no significant difference in mid-term and 1-year mortality between ViV-TAVR and redo SAVR groups with RR of 1.15 (95% CI 0.99-1.32; p = .06) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.69-1.61; p = .8). 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in ViV-TAVR group with RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.93; p = .02). ViV-TAVR group had lower 30-day bleeding, length of stay, and higher postoperative gradients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a lower 30-day mortality and similar 1-year and mid-term mortality for ViV TAVR compared to redo SAVR despite a higher baseline risk. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in the transcatheter therapeutics, VIV TAVR should be preferred over redo SAVR particularly in those at intermediate-high surgical risk.