Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement of Failed Surgically Implanted Bioprostheses: The STS/ACC Registry.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 72(4):370-382, 2018 Jul 24.PMID: 30025572Institution: MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2018Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:1999-2007ISSN:
  • 0735-1097
Name of journal: Journal of the American College of CardiologyAbstract: BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible, yet the safety and efficacy in relation to native valve (NV) TAVR are not known.CONCLUSIONS: Comparison with the benchmark NV-TAVR shows ViV-TAVR to be a safe and effective procedure in patients with failed SAVR who are at high risk for repeat surgery.Copyright (c) 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.METHODS: Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n = 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data.OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR.RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% confidence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p = 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% confidence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p = 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% confidence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p = 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs.All authors: Brennan JM, Carroll JD, Dai D, Grover FL, Holmes DR Jr, Kapadia SR, Mack MJ, Suri RM, Svensson LG, Thourani VH, Tuzcu EM, Vemulapalli SFiscal year: FY2019Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2018-07-30
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 30025572 Available 30025572

Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:1999-2007

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible, yet the safety and efficacy in relation to native valve (NV) TAVR are not known.

CONCLUSIONS: Comparison with the benchmark NV-TAVR shows ViV-TAVR to be a safe and effective procedure in patients with failed SAVR who are at high risk for repeat surgery.

Copyright (c) 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

METHODS: Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n = 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR.

RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% confidence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p = 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% confidence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p = 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% confidence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p = 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs.

English

Powered by Koha