The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2025
Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement vs Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Valves.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Awtry Jake, Faggion Vinholo Thais, Cho Mansoo, Allen Philip, Semco Robert, Hirji Sameer, McGurk Siobhan, Newell Paige, Dey Tanujit, Cunningham Mark J, Sabe Ashraf, de la Cruz Kim I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is associated with improved perioperative safety compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR), but long-term outcomes remain uncertain. We therefore compare long-term outcomes of ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR.
METHODS: The study included 1:1 propensity score-matched Medicare beneficiaries with degenerated bioprosthetic valves admitted between September 29, 2011, and December 30, 2020, undergoing either redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, other concomitant cardiac surgery, and aortic valve reintervention during the same admission. The primary outcome was 5-year survival. Composite secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (30-day operative mortality, stroke, or acute myocardial infarction) and major valve event-free survival (congestive heart failure readmission, endocarditis, or aortic valve reintervention). Time-to-event analyses used Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling.
RESULTS: Overall, 4699 patients, including 1775 redo-SAVR and 2924 ViV-TAVR patients, were identified. Redo-SAVR patients were younger (median [interquartile range], 72 [68-77] years vs 79 [73-84] years) with less congestive heart failure (39.6% vs 68.8%) and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (17.9% vs 32.0%; all P < .05). In the propensity score-matched cohorts of 1256 patients each, redo-SAVR had higher major adverse cardiovascular events (17.4% vs 13.1%; P = .003) but better major valve event-free (71 [62-79] months vs 43 [38-47] months; P < .001) and 5-year (62.3% vs 46.7%; P < .001) survival. After stratification by Charlson comorbidity index, the long-term survival benefit persisted in patients of lower (67.6% vs 54.9%; P = .001) and medium or higher risk (55.1% vs 36.7%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Redo-SAVR may have better long-term survival than ViV-TAVR despite greater perioperative morbidity. Clinical trial data are needed to fully inform clinical decision-making about degenerated bioprosthetic valve reintervention, particularly for patients with reasonable life expectancy.
METHODS: The study included 1:1 propensity score-matched Medicare beneficiaries with degenerated bioprosthetic valves admitted between September 29, 2011, and December 30, 2020, undergoing either redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, other concomitant cardiac surgery, and aortic valve reintervention during the same admission. The primary outcome was 5-year survival. Composite secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (30-day operative mortality, stroke, or acute myocardial infarction) and major valve event-free survival (congestive heart failure readmission, endocarditis, or aortic valve reintervention). Time-to-event analyses used Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling.
RESULTS: Overall, 4699 patients, including 1775 redo-SAVR and 2924 ViV-TAVR patients, were identified. Redo-SAVR patients were younger (median [interquartile range], 72 [68-77] years vs 79 [73-84] years) with less congestive heart failure (39.6% vs 68.8%) and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (17.9% vs 32.0%; all P < .05). In the propensity score-matched cohorts of 1256 patients each, redo-SAVR had higher major adverse cardiovascular events (17.4% vs 13.1%; P = .003) but better major valve event-free (71 [62-79] months vs 43 [38-47] months; P < .001) and 5-year (62.3% vs 46.7%; P < .001) survival. After stratification by Charlson comorbidity index, the long-term survival benefit persisted in patients of lower (67.6% vs 54.9%; P = .001) and medium or higher risk (55.1% vs 36.7%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Redo-SAVR may have better long-term survival than ViV-TAVR despite greater perioperative morbidity. Clinical trial data are needed to fully inform clinical decision-making about degenerated bioprosthetic valve reintervention, particularly for patients with reasonable life expectancy.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansBioprosthesisMaleFemaleReoperationTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAgedAged, 80 and overHeart Valve ProsthesisRetrospective StudiesAortic ValvePropensity ScoreProsthesis FailureAortic Valve StenosisPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationSurvival RateTime Factors