Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed transcatheter versus failed surgical bioprostheses: a systematic review with exploratory meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Ghannam Mohammad, Abomohsen Mustafa, Idries Iyad Y, Shamoon Fayez, Ghallab Muhammad, Zghyer Fawzi, González Alena V, Ahmad Abdullah, Habib Habib A, Vasudev Rahul
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: With the expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in younger patients, the need for reintervention on failed bioprostheses is rising. Comparative evidence between redo TAVR for failed transcatheter valves (TAV-in-TAV) and TAVR for failed surgical valves (TAV-in-SAV) is limited.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse the clinical, haemodynamic, and safety outcomes of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase were searched from inception to April 2026. Studies directly comparing TAV-in-TAV with TAV-in-SAV and reporting original data with ≥10 patients per group were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, mean transvalvular gradient at 30 days, and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation.
RESULTS: Four observational studies, including 705 patients in the extracted comparative cohorts, met the inclusion criteria. Two full-text studies contributed to the primary quantitative analyses. TAV-in-TAV was not associated with a statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality compared with TAV-in-SAV (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25-2.00), nor in 1-year mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47-2.18). TAV-in-TAV was associated with lower mean transvalvular gradients at 30 days (MD -2.71 mmHg, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.34). A non-significant trend toward higher new permanent pacemaker implantation was observed after TAV-in-TAV (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94-3.65).
CONCLUSION: Current comparative evidence between TAV-in-TAV and TAV-in-SAV remains limited and observational. No definitive mortality difference was identified, but clinically meaningful benefit or harm cannot be excluded. TAV-in-TAV shows a consistent early haemodynamic signal with lower gradients, while the possible increase in pacemaker implantation remains exploratory. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger prospective studies with longer follow-up.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261369410, PROSPERO CRD420261369410.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse the clinical, haemodynamic, and safety outcomes of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase were searched from inception to April 2026. Studies directly comparing TAV-in-TAV with TAV-in-SAV and reporting original data with ≥10 patients per group were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, mean transvalvular gradient at 30 days, and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation.
RESULTS: Four observational studies, including 705 patients in the extracted comparative cohorts, met the inclusion criteria. Two full-text studies contributed to the primary quantitative analyses. TAV-in-TAV was not associated with a statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality compared with TAV-in-SAV (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25-2.00), nor in 1-year mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47-2.18). TAV-in-TAV was associated with lower mean transvalvular gradients at 30 days (MD -2.71 mmHg, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.34). A non-significant trend toward higher new permanent pacemaker implantation was observed after TAV-in-TAV (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94-3.65).
CONCLUSION: Current comparative evidence between TAV-in-TAV and TAV-in-SAV remains limited and observational. No definitive mortality difference was identified, but clinically meaningful benefit or harm cannot be excluded. TAV-in-TAV shows a consistent early haemodynamic signal with lower gradients, while the possible increase in pacemaker implantation remains exploratory. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger prospective studies with longer follow-up.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261369410, PROSPERO CRD420261369410.