Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction.
Landes UCentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Rabin Medical Center, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Webb JGCentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: johngraydonwebb@gmail.com.
De Backer ORigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sondergaard LRigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ruile PUniversity Heart Center Freiburg, Bad Krozingen, Germany.
Neumann FJUniversity Heart Center Freiburg, Bad Krozingen, Germany.
Piazza NMcGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Alosaimi HMcGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sievert HCardiovascular Center, Frankfurt, Germany.
Sievert KCardiovascular Center, Frankfurt, Germany.
Russo MDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas MDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Bunc MUniversity Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Latib AMontefiore Medical Center, New York, New York.
Govdfrey RBrighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Hildick-Smith DBrighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Sathananthan JCentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Hensey MCentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Alkhodair ACentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Blanke PCentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Leipsic JCentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Wood DACentre for Cardiovascular Innovation Centre for Heart Valve Innovation, St. Paul's and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nazif TMColumbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Kodali SColumbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Leon MBColumbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Barbanti MA.O.U. Policlinico Vittorio Emanuele, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/barbanti_marco.
English
BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail.
OBJECTIVES The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR.
METHODS The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively.
RESULTS Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern.