Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49–3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78–1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40–0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29–3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

[1]  Sara K. Rostanski,et al.  Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2022, JAMA cardiology.

[2]  W. Toff,et al.  Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2022, JAMA.

[3]  L. Fauchier,et al.  Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement or re‐surgical aortic valve replacement in degenerated bioprostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of short and midterm results , 2022, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[4]  G. Dangas,et al.  Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. , 2022, The American journal of cardiology.

[5]  A. Unbehaun,et al.  Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future , 2021, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[6]  L. Svensson,et al.  Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis. , 2021, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  B. Prendergast,et al.  2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. , 2021, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[8]  B. Prendergast,et al.  2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. , 2021, European heart journal.

[9]  K. Lam,et al.  Report on outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and redo surgical aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands , 2021, Netherlands Heart Journal.

[10]  D. Fischman,et al.  Meta‐analysis comparing valve‐in‐valve TAVR and redo‐SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve , 2021, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[11]  M. Cameli,et al.  Early and Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Degeneration: Two Faces of the Same Medal. , 2021, Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia.

[12]  N. Freemantle,et al.  Five-year outcome in 18 010 patients from the German Aortic Valve Registry. , 2021, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[13]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk. , 2021, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  G. Abela,et al.  Meta-analysis of Valve-in-valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo-surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve. , 2021, The American journal of cardiology.

[15]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis. , 2021, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[16]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Transcatheter Replacement of Transcatheter Versus Surgically Implanted Aortic Valve Bioprostheses. , 2021, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2021, European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.

[18]  R. Guyton,et al.  Isolated Redo-Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Valve Replacement. , 2020, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[19]  L. Fauchier,et al.  Contents , 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  A. Unbehaun,et al.  Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves. , 2020, European heart journal.

[21]  B. Perek,et al.  Femoral transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation as alternative strategy for failed aortic bioprostheses: A single-centre experience with long-term follow-up. , 2020, International Journal of Cardiology.

[22]  M. Mack,et al.  Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  P. Austin,et al.  Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis: Early and Late Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[24]  G. Schuler,et al.  Treatment of failed aortic bioprostheses: An evaluation of conventional redo surgery and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. , 2019, International journal of cardiology.

[25]  H. Schaff,et al.  Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus surgical replacement of failing stented aortic biological valves. , 2019, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[26]  P. Avanzas,et al.  Long-term Survival After Surgery Versus Transcatheter Technique to Treat Degenerated Aortic Bioprostheses. , 2019, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[27]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement with a Balloon‐Expandable Valve in Low‐Risk Patients , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  D. Malenka,et al.  Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT Registry. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[29]  Sean M. O'Brien,et al.  The Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement. , 2018, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[30]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Long-Term Outcomes Following Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis Implantation. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  C. Don,et al.  Impact of Pre-Existing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Survival Following Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedures. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[32]  R. Lange,et al.  Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve , 2018, Heart.

[33]  R. Lange,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis. , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[34]  M. Baiocchi,et al.  Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  P. Royston,et al.  Reconstructing Time-to-event Data from Published Kaplan–Meier Curves , 2017 .

[36]  S. Blankenberg,et al.  Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses. , 2017, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[37]  L. Cohn,et al.  Reoperative Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves. , 2016, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[38]  M. Mack,et al.  Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[39]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Meta‐analysis of time‐to‐event outcomes from randomized trials using restricted mean survival time: application to individual participant data , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[40]  Abby J. Isaacs,et al.  National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. , 2015, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[41]  N. Smedira,et al.  Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. , 2015, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[42]  Jennifer Taylor,et al.  ESC/EACTS Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease. , 2012, European heart journal.

[43]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[44]  M. Sydes,et al.  Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis , 2007, Trials.

[45]  I. Hozo,et al.  Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample , 2005, BMC medical research methodology.

[46]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .