1. Redo aortic valve replacement vs valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: a UK propensity-matched analysis
- Author
-
Francesca Gatta, Yama Haqzad, George Gradinariu, Pietro Giorgio Malvindi, Zubair Khalid, Rona L. Suelo-Calanao, Nader Moawad, Aladdin Bashir, Luke J. Rogers, Clinton Lloyd, Bao Nguyen, Karen Booth, Lu Wang, Nawwar Al-Attar, Neil McDowall, Stuart Watkins, Rana Sayeed, Saleh Baghdadi, Andrea D'Alessio, Maria Monteagudo-vela, Jasmina Djordjevic, Matej Goricar, Solveig Hoppe, Charlotte Bocking, Azar Hussain, Betsy Evans, Salman Arif, Christopher Malkin, Mark Field, Kully Sandhu, Amer Harky, Ahmed Torky, Mauin Uddin, Muhammad Abdulhakeem, Ayman Kenawy, John Massey, Neil Cartwright, Nathan Tyson, Niki Nicou, Kamran Baig, Mark Jones, Firas Aljanadi, Colum G. Owens, Tunde Oyebanji, Joseph Doyle, Mark S. Spence, Paul F. Brennan, Ganesh Manoharan, Taha Ramadan, Sunil Ohri, and Mahmoud Loubani
- Subjects
redo aortic valve replacement ,valve-in-valve TAVI ,aortic valve ,Medicine - Abstract
This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicentre UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. Mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR vs 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including IABP support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF