Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes Comparison of Native- and Valve-in-Valve TAVI Procedures
Peter V Bartos1,2, Balazs Molnar2, Zoltan Herold3
1Department of Cardiology, Gottsegen National Cardiovascular Center, 1096 Budapest, Hungary.
Background:
In high-risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. To compare outcomes of ViV and native valve (NV) TAVI procedures.
Methods:
34 aortic ViV-TAVI performed between 2012 and 2022 using self-expanding valves, were included in this retrospective analysis. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio, 19 criteria) was used to select a comparison NV-TAVI group from a database of 1206 TAVI procedures. Clinical and echocardiographic endpoints, short- and long-term all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) data were obtained. Subgroup analyses were completed according to the true internal diameter, dividing patients into a small ( 19 mm) valve group (SVG) and a large ( 19 mm) valve group (LVG).
Results:
Clinical outcomes of ViV- and NV-TAVI were comparable, including device success [88.2% vs. 91.1%, p = 0.727], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [5.8% vs. 5.8%, p = 1.000], hemodialysis need [5.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.599], pacemaker need [2.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.265], major vascular complications [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000], life-threatening or major bleeding [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000] and in-hospital mortality [8.8% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.556]. There was a significant difference in the immediate post-intervention mean residual aortic valve gradient (MAVG) [14.6 8.5 mm Hg vs. 6.4 4.5 mm Hg, p 0.0001], which persisted at 1 year [p = 0.0002]. There were no differences in 12- or 30-month ACM [11.8% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.588; 23.5% vs. 27.9%, p = 0.948], and CVM [11.8% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.441; 23.5% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.239]. Lastly, there was no difference in CVM at 1 year and 30 months [11.1% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.889; 22.2% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.742].
Conclusions:
Analyzing a limited group (n = 34) of ViV-TAVI procedures out of 1206 TAVIs done at a single institution, ViV-TAVI appeared to be an acceptable approach in patients not deemed appropriate candidates for redo valve replacement surgery. Clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVI were comparable to TAVI for native valve stenosis.
