Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis: Early and Late Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare early and late outcomes between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR.

BACKGROUND

Published studies to date comparing redo surgical AVR (RS) with ViV transcatheter AVR for failed biological prostheses have been small and limited to early outcomes.

METHODS

Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, were linked to obtain patients undergoing ViV and RS for failed previous biological prostheses. Propensity score matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Early outcomes were compared using the McNemar test. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients undergoing intervention for failed biological prostheses between March 31, 2008, and September 30, 2017, at 11 Ontario institutions (ViV, n = 214; RS, n = 344) were included. Patients who underwent ViV were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching on 27 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n = 131 pairs). Mean time from initial AVR to RS or ViV was 8.6 ± 4.4 years and 11.3 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared with RS (absolute risk difference: -7.5%; 95% confidence interval: -12.6% to -2.3%). The rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and blood transfusions were also lower with ViV, as was length of stay. Survival at 5 years was higher with ViV (76.8% vs. 66.8%; hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.99; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay and with increased survival compared with RS and may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prostheses.