Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 20;14(10):e040954.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.125.040954. Epub 2025 May 15.

Rationale and Design of the REPEAT Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement to Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Matthias Raschpichler  1 , Suzanne de Waha  1   2 , Stefan Blankenberg  3 , Marcio A Diniz  4 , Emilia Bagiella  4 , Annetine C Gelijns  4 , Vinicius F Calsavara  5 , Aakriti Gupta  6 , Niklas Schofer  3 , Tsuyoshi Kaneko  7 , Mohamed Abdel-Wahab  8 , Holger Thiele  8 , Raj Makkar  6 , Michael A Borger  1
Affiliations

Rationale and Design of the REPEAT Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement to Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Matthias Raschpichler et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR) has for long been the therapeutic reference standard for degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative for patients at high surgical risk due to its lower invasiveness. The long-term clinical efficacy of ViV-TAVR in patients at low to intermediate surgical risk remains unknown.

Methods and results: To compare clinical outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement versus ViV-TAVR in low- to intermediate-risk patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses. REPEAT (Repeat Intervention for Deteriorated Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves) is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label trial. A total of 890 patients aged <75 years with a failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis due to structural valve degeneration and low to intermediate surgical risk (ie, Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of death of <8%) will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either redo surgical aortic valve replacement or ViV-TAVR. The primary end point of REPEAT is a composite of all-cause death, stroke (including both disabling and nondisabling), myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure or aortic valve reintervention at 5 years, based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 definitions. Secondary end points include each of the individual components of the primary composite end point, Valve Academic Research Consortium-3-based conduction disturbances and arrhythmia, Valve Academic Research Consortium-3-based wound and bleeding complications, functional status (ie, 6-minute walk test, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire), and treatment costs.

Conclusions: The REPEAT trial has been designed to test the hypothesis that redo surgical aortic valve replacement is superior to ViV-TAVR regarding clinical outcomes at 5 years in patients with degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses and low to intermediate surgical risk.

Keywords: aortic stenosis; failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis; redo surgical aortic valve replacement; structural valve deterioration; valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart for screening, randomization, and follow‐up in the REPEAT trial.
NYHA indicates New York Heart Association; QoL, quality of life; REPEAT, Repeat Intervention for Deteriorated Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves; rSAVR, redo surgical aortic valve replacement; SVD, structural valve degeneration; and ViV‐TAVR, valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ramos J, Monteagudo JM, Gonzalez‐Alujas T, Fuentes ME, Sitges M, Pena ML, Carrasco‐Chinchilla F, Echeverria T, Bouzas A, Forteza Alberti JF, et al. Large‐scale assessment of aortic stenosis: facing the next cardiac epidemic? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19:1142–1148. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jex223 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Gentile F, Jneid H, Krieger EV, Mack M, McLeod C, et al. ACC/AHA guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143:e72–e227. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000923 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, Capodanno D, Conradi L, De Bonis M, De Paulis R, et al. ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:561–632. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, Moat N, Murphy G, Pagano D, Ray S, Roxburgh J, Bridgewater B. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use‐‐an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland national database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:776–782. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.04.048 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources