Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation with Newer Generation Evolut Valve by Size of Failed Bioprosthesis
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery Research, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA
2Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Main Line Health Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA
3Department of Interventional Cardiology, Lankenau Heart Institute, Main Line Health Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA
4Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery Research, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA ; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Main Line Health Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, USA
Anatol J Cardiol - PubMed ID: 39763314 DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2024.4633
Full Text PDF

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) with newer-generation self-expanding Evolut valves according to the size of the failed surgical bioprosthesis.

Methods: This single-center retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing ViV TAVR with the Evolut Pro/Pro+/Fx between 2018 and 2022. These patients were compared based on the true internal diameter (ID) of the failed bioprosthesis, specifically ≤19 mm (small group) vs. >19 mm (large group). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and bioprosthetic valve failure. A Cox regression hazard model adjusted for covariates using propensity scores was used to assess the effect of the true ID on clinical outcomes.

Results: A total of 91 patients (small group, n = 35; large group, n = 56) were identified, and the median age of the entire cohort was 78 years. Patients in the small group were more likely to be female and have a small body surface area. The incidence of post-procedural mean gradient ≥20 mm Hg (40% vs. 8.9%, P = .001) and moderate/severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (63% vs. 38%, P < .001) was significantly higher in the small group. During a median follow-up period of 25 (range: 1.0-66) months, all-cause mortality showed no significant difference between the groups (adjusted P = .104); however, the rate of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the small group (adjusted hazard ratio 3.72, 95% CI 1.48; 9.37).

Conclusion: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for small bioprostheses was associated with worse early and midterm outcomes compared with those for large bioprostheses.