Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review
- PMID: 38592142
- PMCID: PMC10932095
- DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051297
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.
Keywords: SAVR; TAVR; aortic stenosis; coronary obstruction; outcomes; paravalvular regurgitation; prosthesis–patient mismatch; review; valve in valve.
Conflict of interest statement
M.S. is a consultant for Boston Scientific. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Card Surg. 2021 Jul;36(7):2486-2495. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15546. Epub 2021 Apr 2. J Card Surg. 2021. PMID: 33797799
-
Two-Year Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Using New-Generation Transcatheter Devices Compared With Redo-SAVR.Am J Cardiol. 2023 Nov 15;207:380-389. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.08.147. Epub 2023 Sep 29. Am J Cardiol. 2023. PMID: 37778227
-
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2022 Dec;20(12):911-918. doi: 10.1080/14779072.2022.2153118. Epub 2022 Dec 5. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2022. PMID: 36433699
-
Meta-analysis comparing valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Nov 1;98(5):940-947. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29789. Epub 2021 Jun 10. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021. PMID: 34110684
-
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: An updated meta-analysis comparing midterm outcomes.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jun 1;97(7):1481-1488. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29541. Epub 2021 Feb 13. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021. PMID: 33580743
References
-
- Cribier A., Eltchaninoff H., Bash A., Borenstein N., Tron C., Bauer F., Derumeaux G., Anselme F., Laborde F., Leon M.B., et al. Percutaneous Transcatheter Implantation of an Aortic Valve Prosthesis for Calcific Aortic Stenosis: First Human Case Description. Circulation. 2002;106:3006–3008. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000047200.36165.B8. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Mahmaljy H., Tawney A., Young M. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; St. Petersburg, FL, USA: 2023. [(accessed on 21 December 2023)]. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK431075/ - PubMed
-
- Gleason T.G., Reardon M.J., Popma J.J., Deeb G.M., Yakubov S.J., Lee J.S., Kleiman N.S., Chetcuti S., Hermiller J.B., Heiser J., et al. 5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018;72:2687–2696. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2146. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Mack M.J., Leon M.B., Smith C.R., Miller D.C., Moses J.W., Tuzcu E.M., Webb J.G., Douglas P.S., Anderson W.N., Blackstone E.H., et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2477–2484. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources