Hemodynamic performances and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing valve-in-valve versus native transcatheter aortic-valve Implantation

Background Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) emerged has a less invasive treatment than repeated surgery for patients with degenerated bioprosthesis. However, few data are currently available regarding results of ViV vs. native valve TAVI. Purpose We aimed to compare hemodynamic performances and 1-year outcomes between patients undergoing ViV procedure and patients undergoing non-ViV TAVI. Methods This bicentric study included all patients undergoing aortic ViV procedure for surgical bioprosthetic aortic failure between 2013 and 2017. All patients undergoing TAVI were included in the analysis during the same period. ViV and non-ViV patients were matched with 1:2 ratio according to size, type of TAVI device, age (± 5 years), sex and STS score. Primary endpoint was hemodynamic performance including mean aortic gradient and aortic regurgitation at 1-year follow-up. Results A total of 132 patients were included, 49 in the ViV group and 83 in the non-ViV group. Mean age was 82.8 ± 5.9 years, 55.3% were female. Mean STS score was 5.2 ± 3.1%. Self-expandable valves were implanted in 78.8% of patients. At 1-year follow-up, aortic mean gradient was significantly higher in ViV group (18.1 ± 9.4 mmHg vs. 11.4 ± 5.4 mmHg; P 20 mmHg vs. 6 (7.8%) in the non-ViV group (P = 0.0001). Aortic regurgitations > grade 2 were similar in both groups (P = 0.71). In the ViV group new pacemaker implantation were less frequent (P = 0.01) and coronary occlusions occurred only in ViV group (n = 2 (4.1%)) ( Fig. 1 ). Conclusion ViV is a promising alternative to repeated cardiac surgery in patients with failed bioprosthesis. As 1-year hemodynamic performances seem better in native TAVI procedure, long-term follow-up should be assessed to determinate the impact of residual stenosis on outcomes and durability.