Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Versus Redo Aortic Valve Surgery for Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Dysfunction

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has evolved as an alternative to redo surgical valve replacement (redo-SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic bioprosthetic valve (BPV) dysfunction. The differences in procedural success and outcomes in a large number of patients who underwent ViV-TAVI compared with redo-SAVR for aortic BPV dysfunction are not known. We conducted a meta-analysis of the previously reported studies to determine outcomes after ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies that reported comparative outcomes of patients who underwent either ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR. Four observational studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 489 patients, 227 of whom underwent ViV-TAVI and 262 underwent redo-SAVR. Thirty-day mortality was similar in 2 groups (5% vs 4%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44 to 2.62) despite the higher operative risk in the ViV-TAVI cohort as evidenced by significantly higher EuroSCORE I or II. There were similar rates of stroke (2% vs 2%; OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.28 to 3.59), myocardial infarction (2% vs 1%; OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.27 to 4.33), and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (7% vs 10%; OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.1.77) between 2 groups but a lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the ViV-TAVI group (9% vs 15%; OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.81). This meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies with modest number of patients suggested that ViV-TAVI had similar 30-day survival compared with redo-SAVR for aortic BPV dysfunction.