Subscribe

DOI:

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry

Dvir D.1,18, Webb J.2, Pasic M.3, Bleiziffer S.4, Waksman R.1, Schaefer U.5, Colombo A.6, Rodés-Cabau J.7, Treede H.8, Hildick-Smith D.9, Descoutures F.10, Walther T.11, Hengstenberg C.12, Nissen H.13, Bekeredjian R.14, Ferrari E.15, Windecker S.16, Brecker S.17, Laborde J.C.17, Kornowski R.18

Risk assesment in TAVI including valve-in-valve

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry

Aims: Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for a redo surgery. We aimed to evaluate the clinical results of this technique using a large worldwide registry.

Methods and results: The registry included 416 patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves (age 77.7±9.7 years; 55.3% men) from 54 cardiac centres. The mode of failure was stenosis (n=168, 40.4%), regurgitation (n=125, 30%), and combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=123, 29.6%). Implanted devices were Edwards SAPIEN (n=225), CoreValve (n=190) and Melody (n=1). Adverse procedural outcomes included 11.1% device malposition and 1.9% ostial coronary obstruction. Post procedure, valve maximum / mean gradients were 28.5±14.3 mmHg / 16.1±9.0, respectively. Independent predictors for high post-procedural gradients (mean ≥20 mmHg) were baseline bioprosthesis stenosis (vs. regurgitation, odds ratio [OR], 6.33, p<0.001) and the use of the Edwards SAPIEN device (OR 2.1, p=0.008). At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 7.8% and 87.5% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional Class I/II. One-year survival was 82.6%. Using multivariate analysis, the strongest independent predictor for one-year mortality post-VIV was baseline bioprosthesis stenosis (vs. regurgitation, OR 3.7, p=0.003).

Conclusions: The VIV procedure is clinically effective in most patients, with one-year results comparable with other TAVR cohorts. Baseline bioprosthetic stenosis is the strongest predictor for both elevated post-procedural gradients and one-year mortality.

Volume 8 Supplement Q
Sep 30, 2012
Volume 8 Supplement Q
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

10.4244/EIJV9SSA15 Sep 15, 2013
Failing surgical bioprosthesis in aortic and mitral position
Mylotte D et al
free

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00254 Nov 19, 2021
Outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with and without bioprosthetic valve fracture
Brinkmann C et al
free

10.4244/EIJ-E-21-00006 Feb 18, 2022
Valve-in-valve TAVI: the new standard therapy for failing bioprosthetic valves?
Baldus S and Mauri V
free
Chat with Cory
Hello , I'm Cory and I will do my best to answer your questions about this article. Please remember that this is an experimental feature, and that I'm still learning.
What were the adverse procedural outcomes reported in the study?
What was the 30-day and one-year survival rate in the study cohort?
What percentage of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II at 30-day follow-up?
What were the key conclusions of the study regarding the clinical effectiveness of the VIV procedure?
X

PCR
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved