Search

Background: Valve-in-Valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is a growing alternative for redo-surgery in patients with degenerated surgical valves. To our knowledge, data are lacking on the determinants on ViV-TAVI procedural success in patients with degenerated surgical valves.Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing ViV-TAVI for degenerated surgical valves at the Cleveland Clinic were analyzed. Data were extracted from our patient registry on baseline patient characteristics, echocardiographic parameters, and procedural details. To identify possible predictors of ViV-TAVI procedural success, we employed a multivariate logistic regression model.Results: A total of 186 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI were analyzed, with procedural success (VARC-2 device success and absence of periprocedural MACCE) reported in 165 (88.7%) patients. Patients with successful ViV-TAVI were significantly younger and had more frequent utilization of the transfemoral access than those with failed procedure. Other baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between both groups. In terms of echocardiographic parameters, the procedural success group had a significantly lower AV peak pressure gradient (62.1 ± 24.7 vs. 74.1 ± 34.6 mmHg; p = 0.04) and lower incidence of moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation [AR] (30.4 vs. 55%; p = 0.04). However, no significant differences between both groups were noted in terms of AV mean pressure gradient and left ventricular measurements. In multivariate analysis, lower AV peak pressure gradient (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99) and absence of moderate-to-severe AR (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.95) at baseline emerged as independent predictors of ViV-TAVI procedural success.Conclusion: Valve-in-Valve TAVI for degenerated surgical valves is a feasible approach with high success rates, especially in those with lower AV peak pressure gradient and absence of moderate-to-severe AR. Studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to further characterize the predictors of ViV-TAVI success and other clinical outcomes.

Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals.Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool.Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7–75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5–22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6–67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9–64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1–55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1–83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3–53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5–29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics.Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.