Outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation

The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. a total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the society of thoracic surgeons predicted Risk of mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). in conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.