Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/22910
Title: Meta-analysis Comparing Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves.
Austin Authors: Hamilton, Garry W ;Koshy, Anoop N ;Fulcher, Jordan ;Tang, Gilbert H L;Bapat, Vinayak;Murphy, Alexandra C ;Horrigan, Mark;Farouque, Omar ;Yudi, Matias B 
Affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, USA
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Centre, New York, NY, USA
Issue Date: 15-May-2020
metadata.dc.date: 2020-03-04
Publication information: The American Journal of Cardiology 2020; 125(10): 1558-1565
Abstract: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to redo-surgery in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses. It remains unclear whether outcomes vary when using either self-expanding (SE) or balloon-expandable (BE) valves. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between SE and BE transcatheter heart valves when used for ViV TAVI. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was performed identifying studies reporting outcomes following ViV TAVI. Event rates were pooled for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 3-year mortality in addition to standard safety outcomes after the procedure as per the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Nineteen studies reporting outcomes for 1,772 patients were included: 924 in the SE group and 848 patients in the BE group. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 12 months (SE 10.3% vs BE 12.6%, p = 0.165, I2 = 0%), or 3 years (SE 21.2% vs BE 31.2%, p = 0.407, I2 = 63.79). SE valves had lower transvalvular gradients after procedure and acute kidney injury, but higher rates of pacemaker insertion, moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation and need for ≥2 valves (all p < 0.05). There were no differences in stroke, coronary obstruction, bleeding, or vascular complications. Despite significant differences in key procedural outcomes between SE and BE valves when used for ViV TAVI, we found no difference in 12-month mortality. Tailored device selection may further reduce the risk of adverse procedural outcomes, particularly over the longer term.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/22910
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.02.021
ORCID: 0000-0002-8741-8631
0000-0002-3706-4150
PubMed URL: 32247652
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

4
checked on Nov 30, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.