Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement of Failed Surgically Implanted Bioprostheses: The STS/ACC Registry

E. Murat Tuzcu, Samir R. Kapadia, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, John D. Carroll, David R. Holmes, Michael J. Mack, Vinod H. Thourani, Frederick L. Grover, J. Matthew Brennan, Rakesh M. Suri, David Dai, Lars G. Svensson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

78 Scopus citations


Background: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible, yet the safety and efficacy in relation to native valve (NV) TAVR are not known. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR. Methods: Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n = 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data. Results: Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% confidence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p = 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% confidence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p = 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% confidence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p = 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs. Conclusions: Comparison with the benchmark NV-TAVR shows ViV-TAVR to be a safe and effective procedure in patients with failed SAVR who are at high risk for repeat surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)370-382
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 24 2018


  • TAVI
  • TAVR
  • aortic stenosis
  • bioprosthetic valve failure
  • valve-in-valve TAVR

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement of Failed Surgically Implanted Bioprostheses: The STS/ACC Registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this