Research ExplorerPublicationsContemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in...

Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement

Standard

Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement. / Demal, Till J; Gordon, Christopher; Bhadra, Oliver D; Linder, Matthias; Ludwig, Sebastian; Grundmann, David; Voigtländer, Lisa; Waldschmidt, Lara; Schirmer, Johannes; Schofer, Niklas; Seiffert, Moritz; Blankenberg, Stefan; Reichenspurner, Hermann; Westermann, Dirk; Conradi, Lenard.

In: AM J CARDIOL, Vol. 171, 15.05.2022, p. 115-121.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Demal, TJ, Gordon, C, Bhadra, OD, Linder, M, Ludwig, S, Grundmann, D, Voigtländer, L, Waldschmidt, L, Schirmer, J, Schofer, N, Seiffert, M, Blankenberg, S, Reichenspurner, H, Westermann, D & Conradi, L 2022, 'Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement', AM J CARDIOL, vol. 171, pp. 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.049

APA

Demal, T. J., Gordon, C., Bhadra, O. D., Linder, M., Ludwig, S., Grundmann, D., Voigtländer, L., Waldschmidt, L., Schirmer, J., Schofer, N., Seiffert, M., Blankenberg, S., Reichenspurner, H., Westermann, D., & Conradi, L. (2022). Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement. AM J CARDIOL, 171, 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.049

Vancouver

Demal TJ, Gordon C, Bhadra OD, Linder M, Ludwig S, Grundmann D et al. Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement. AM J CARDIOL. 2022 May 15;171:115-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.049

Bibtex

@article{168bff7dd66541ecb857e372e7f133e6,
title = "Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement",
abstract = "As valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation is still an evolving method, we evaluated the development of early and midterm outcomes after ViV and conventional redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over the past 2 decades. In-hospital databases were retrospectively screened for patients ≥60 years treated for failing bioprosthetic aortic valves at our center. Clinical and follow-up characteristics were compared between patients who underwent ViV or redo-SAVR according to valve academic research consortium-2 (VARC-2) definitions. The comparison of outcome parameters was adjusted for baseline differences between groups. Between June 2002 and April 2020, 209 patients with ViV and 65 redo-SAVR patients met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found in 30 days (ViV 3.8%, SAVR 3.1%, p = 0.778) or 6-month mortality (ViV 14.0%, SAVR 7.5%, p = 0.283). As patients with ViV less frequently experienced acute kidney injury (stage II or III) and life-threatening bleeding, they more frequently reached the 30-day VARC-2 combined safety end point (79.2% vs 61.5%, odds ratio [OR] 2.540, p = 0.023). Patients with ViV less frequently reached clinical efficacy (68.3% vs 84.6%, OR 0.408, p = 0.041) and device success (79.9% vs 92.3%, OR 0.311, p = 0.040) end points, because of higher frequency of postprocedural transvalvular gradients >20 mm Hg. However, over the past decade, VARC-2 clinical efficacy and device success rates continuously increased in ViV cases. In conclusion, ViV and SAVR were associated with similar acute mortality and different beneficial and adverse outcome profiles in this single-center cohort. Results after ViV procedures have continuously improved over the past years.",
keywords = "Aortic Valve/surgery, Aortic Valve Stenosis/etiology, Bioprosthesis, Heart Valve Prosthesis, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/methods, Humans, Reoperation, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods, Treatment Outcome",
author = "Demal, {Till J} and Christopher Gordon and Bhadra, {Oliver D} and Matthias Linder and Sebastian Ludwig and David Grundmann and Lisa Voigtl{\"a}nder and Lara Waldschmidt and Johannes Schirmer and Niklas Schofer and Moritz Seiffert and Stefan Blankenberg and Hermann Reichenspurner and Dirk Westermann and Lenard Conradi",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2022",
month = may,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.049",
language = "English",
volume = "171",
pages = "115--121",
journal = "AM J CARDIOL",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contemporary Outcome Trends in Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Replacement

AU - Demal, Till J

AU - Gordon, Christopher

AU - Bhadra, Oliver D

AU - Linder, Matthias

AU - Ludwig, Sebastian

AU - Grundmann, David

AU - Voigtländer, Lisa

AU - Waldschmidt, Lara

AU - Schirmer, Johannes

AU - Schofer, Niklas

AU - Seiffert, Moritz

AU - Blankenberg, Stefan

AU - Reichenspurner, Hermann

AU - Westermann, Dirk

AU - Conradi, Lenard

N1 - Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2022/5/15

Y1 - 2022/5/15

N2 - As valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation is still an evolving method, we evaluated the development of early and midterm outcomes after ViV and conventional redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over the past 2 decades. In-hospital databases were retrospectively screened for patients ≥60 years treated for failing bioprosthetic aortic valves at our center. Clinical and follow-up characteristics were compared between patients who underwent ViV or redo-SAVR according to valve academic research consortium-2 (VARC-2) definitions. The comparison of outcome parameters was adjusted for baseline differences between groups. Between June 2002 and April 2020, 209 patients with ViV and 65 redo-SAVR patients met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found in 30 days (ViV 3.8%, SAVR 3.1%, p = 0.778) or 6-month mortality (ViV 14.0%, SAVR 7.5%, p = 0.283). As patients with ViV less frequently experienced acute kidney injury (stage II or III) and life-threatening bleeding, they more frequently reached the 30-day VARC-2 combined safety end point (79.2% vs 61.5%, odds ratio [OR] 2.540, p = 0.023). Patients with ViV less frequently reached clinical efficacy (68.3% vs 84.6%, OR 0.408, p = 0.041) and device success (79.9% vs 92.3%, OR 0.311, p = 0.040) end points, because of higher frequency of postprocedural transvalvular gradients >20 mm Hg. However, over the past decade, VARC-2 clinical efficacy and device success rates continuously increased in ViV cases. In conclusion, ViV and SAVR were associated with similar acute mortality and different beneficial and adverse outcome profiles in this single-center cohort. Results after ViV procedures have continuously improved over the past years.

AB - As valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation is still an evolving method, we evaluated the development of early and midterm outcomes after ViV and conventional redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over the past 2 decades. In-hospital databases were retrospectively screened for patients ≥60 years treated for failing bioprosthetic aortic valves at our center. Clinical and follow-up characteristics were compared between patients who underwent ViV or redo-SAVR according to valve academic research consortium-2 (VARC-2) definitions. The comparison of outcome parameters was adjusted for baseline differences between groups. Between June 2002 and April 2020, 209 patients with ViV and 65 redo-SAVR patients met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found in 30 days (ViV 3.8%, SAVR 3.1%, p = 0.778) or 6-month mortality (ViV 14.0%, SAVR 7.5%, p = 0.283). As patients with ViV less frequently experienced acute kidney injury (stage II or III) and life-threatening bleeding, they more frequently reached the 30-day VARC-2 combined safety end point (79.2% vs 61.5%, odds ratio [OR] 2.540, p = 0.023). Patients with ViV less frequently reached clinical efficacy (68.3% vs 84.6%, OR 0.408, p = 0.041) and device success (79.9% vs 92.3%, OR 0.311, p = 0.040) end points, because of higher frequency of postprocedural transvalvular gradients >20 mm Hg. However, over the past decade, VARC-2 clinical efficacy and device success rates continuously increased in ViV cases. In conclusion, ViV and SAVR were associated with similar acute mortality and different beneficial and adverse outcome profiles in this single-center cohort. Results after ViV procedures have continuously improved over the past years.

KW - Aortic Valve/surgery

KW - Aortic Valve Stenosis/etiology

KW - Bioprosthesis

KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis

KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/methods

KW - Humans

KW - Reoperation

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Risk Factors

KW - Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.049

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.049

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 35307189

VL - 171

SP - 115

EP - 121

JO - AM J CARDIOL

JF - AM J CARDIOL

SN - 0002-9149

ER -