Redo-aortic valve replacement in prior stentless prosthetic aortic valves: Transcatheter versus surgical approach.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to compare outcomes of redo-aortic valve replacement (AVR) via surgical or transcatheter approach in prior surgical AVR with large percentage of prior stentless surgical AVR.

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), patients with increased surgical risks now have an alternative to redo surgical AVR (SAVR), known as valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR. Stentless prosthetic aortic valves present a more challenging implantation for ViV-TAVR given the lack of structural frame.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 173 subjects who have undergone SAVR (N = 100) or ViV-TAVR (N = 73) in patients with prior surgical AVR at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from 2009 to 2019. Our study received the proper ethical oversight.

RESULTS

The average ages in redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVR groups were 58.03 ± 13.86 and 66.57 ± 13.44 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). The redo-SAVR had significantly lower STS (2.78 ± 2.09 and 4.68 ± 5.51, p < 0.01) and Euroscores (4.32 ± 2.98 and 7.51 ± 8.24, p < 0.05). The redo-SAVR group had higher percentage requiring mechanical support (8% vs. 0%, p < 0.05) and vasopressors (53% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), longer length of stay (13.65 ± 11.23 vs. 5.68 ± 7.64 days, p < 0.0001), and inpatient mortality (16% vs. 2.78%, p < 0.005). At 30-day follow-up, redo-SAVR group had higher rates of acute kidney injury (10% vs. 0%, p < 0.01), however ViV-TAVR group had more new left bundle branch blocks (6.85% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). No significant differences regarding re-hospitalization rates, stroke, or death up to 1-year.

CONCLUSION

Although the ViV-TAVR group had higher risk patients, there were significantly fewer procedural complications, shorter length of stay, and similar mortality outcomes up to 1-year follow-up.