Hemodynamic Performances and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Versus Native Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) emerged has a less invasive treatment than surgery for patients with degenerated bioprosthesis. However, few data are currently available regarding results of ViV versus TAVI in native aortic valve. We aimed to compare hemodynamic performances and 1-year outcomes between patients who underwent ViV procedure and patients who underwent non-ViV TAVI. This bicentric study included all patients who underwent aortic ViV procedure for surgical bioprosthetic aortic failure between 2013 and 2017. All patients who underwent 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 end point was hemodynamic performance including mean aortic gradient and aortic regurgitation at 1-year follow-up. 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 mm Hg vs 11.4 ± 5.4 mm Hg; p < 0.0001) and 17 (38.6%) patients had a mean aortic gradient ≥20 mm Hg vs 6 (7.8%) in the non-ViV group (p = 0.0001). Aortic regurgitation > grade 2 were similar in both groups (p = 0.71). In the ViV group, new pacemaker implantation was less frequent (p = 0.01) and coronary occlusions occurred only in ViV group (n = 2 [4.1%]). At 1-year follow-up, 3 patients (2.3%) died from cardiac cause, 1 (2.1%) in the ViV group vs 2 (2.4%) in the non-ViV group (p = 0.9). There was no stroke. In conclusion, compared with TAVI in native aortic stenosis, ViV appears as a safe and feasible strategy in patients with impaired 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.