Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement of Failed Surgically Implanted Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible, yet the safety and ef fi cacy in relation to native valve (NV) TAVR are not known. OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR. METHODS Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n ¼ 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n ¼ 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data. RESULTS Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p ¼ 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% con fi dence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p ¼ 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% con fi dence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p ¼ 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% con fi dence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p ¼ 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs. to a safe