Reintervention for Failed Aortic Bioprostheses: Distinct Patient Profiles for Redo Surgery and Valve-in-Valve TAVR in an All-Comers Cohort

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Aortic valve therapy increasingly follows a lifetime management concept. As all bioprostheses ultimately degenerate, optimal outcomes rely on the appropriate selection and timing of treatment modality. This study evaluates outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) in a consecutive, unselected real-world cohort treated for bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). <b>Methods</b>: A single-center retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR for BVF between June 2019 and December 2024 was conducted. The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days and at 1, 3, and 5 years; the secondary endpoint was time to reintervention. Cox proportional hazards models were used; proportionality was tested; subgroups were defined by indication and presence of concomitant procedures. <b>Results</b>: Eighty-three patients were included (redo-SAVR <i>n</i> = 42; ViV-TAVR <i>n</i> = 41). All active endocarditis cases were managed surgically. In isolated procedures, 30-day survival was 95.5% after redo-SAVR (100% when excluding endocarditis) and 100% after ViV-TAVR; 5-year survival was 81.3% and 94.1%, respectively (94.4% for isolated redo-SAVR excluding endocarditis). Because hazards were non-proportional and risk sets were sparse beyond 5 years, we fitted a time-split Cox model (0-5 years). In multivariable analysis, endocarditis (HR 4.45, 95% CI 1.16-17.04) and NYHA IV (HR 4.87, 95% CI 0.98-24.17)-not treatment modality-were associated with mortality. <b>Conclusions</b>: In a real-world, all-comers setting, early outcomes for isolated reinterventions were favorable with both pathways. Mortality patterns were case-mix driven-especially by endocarditis and the need for concomitant surgery. Accordingly, ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR should be viewed not as competing procedures but as complementary, scenario-specific options within a lifetime management strategy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2026-01-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15020474
Primary Topic
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reintervention for Failed Aortic Bioprostheses: Distinct Patient Profiles for Redo Surgery and Valve-in-Valve TAVR in an All-Comers Cohort

Zsuzsanna Arnold, Rudolf Seemann, Markus Mach, Daniela Geisler et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
article

Reintervention for Failed Aortic Bioprostheses: Distinct Patient Profiles for Redo Surgery and Valve-in-Valve TAVR in an All-Comers Cohort

Zsuzsanna Arnold, Rudolf Seemann, Markus Mach, Daniela Geisler, Martin Grabenwöger, Marieluise Harrer, Georg Delle-Karth
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Aortic valve therapy increasingly follows a lifetime management concept. As all bioprostheses ultimately degenerate, optimal outcomes rely on the appropriate selection and timing of treatment modality. This study evaluates outcomes of redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) in a consecutive, unselected real-world cohort treated for bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). <b>Methods</b>: A single-center retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR for BVF between June 2019 and December 2024 was conducted. The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days and at 1, 3, and 5 years; the secondary endpoint was time to reintervention. Cox proportional hazards models were used; proportionality was tested; subgroups were defined by indication and presence of concomitant procedures. <b>Results</b>: Eighty-three patients were included (redo-SAVR <i>n</i> = 42; ViV-TAVR <i>n</i> = 41). All active endocarditis cases were managed surgically. In isolated procedures, 30-day survival was 95.5% after redo-SAVR (100% when excluding endocarditis) and 100% after ViV-TAVR; 5-year survival was 81.3% and 94.1%, respectively (94.4% for isolated redo-SAVR excluding endocarditis). Because hazards were non-proportional and risk sets were sparse beyond 5 years, we fitted a time-split Cox model (0-5 years). In multivariable analysis, endocarditis (HR 4.45, 95% CI 1.16-17.04) and NYHA IV (HR 4.87, 95% CI 0.98-24.17)-not treatment modality-were associated with mortality. <b>Conclusions</b>: In a real-world, all-comers setting, early outcomes for isolated reinterventions were favorable with both pathways. Mortality patterns were case-mix driven-especially by endocarditis and the need for concomitant surgery. Accordingly, ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR should be viewed not as competing procedures but as complementary, scenario-specific options within a lifetime management strategy.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(2)
Graz University Hospital (AT), University Clinic of Traumatology (AT), Karl Landsteiner Society (AT), Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.