Comparing short- and long-term outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: a literature review
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) are two primary strategies for managing degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. ViV-TAVR has gained prominence due to its minimally invasive nature, shorter recovery time, and reduced perioperative risk, making it preferable for high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities. In contrast, redo-SAVR remains the gold standard for younger, lower-risk patients because of its superior long-term durability, lower residual gradients, and decreased risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR are key strategies for managing degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. ViV-TAVR is favored for high-risk patients due to its minimally invasive nature, shorter recovery, and reduced perioperative risks, while redo-SAVR remains the gold standard for younger, lower-risk patients owing to its long-term durability and reduced risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Ongoing concerns regarding long-term durability, higher transvalvular gradients, and potential coronary obstruction exist. Although redo-SAVR offers better longevity, it has higher perioperative risks and longer recovery times. Across the included propensity-score matched studies and meta-analyses, long-term all-cause mortality was generally comparable between ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR, although results were heterogeneous and some studies suggested a possible advantage for redo-SAVR in selected populations and/or with longer follow-up. However, ViV-TAVR may be associated with increased heart failure hospitalizations (HHF) after two years and redo-SAVR has superior short-term outcomes with regard to decreased myocardial infarction and PPM. Comparative studies also highlight a lower risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with ViV-TAVR, while redo-SAVR patients may experience better mid- to long-term survival.
Authors
- Homa Taheri (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8612-0571)
- Reza Eshraghi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3435-3851)
- Michael Fogli
- Nikolaos Spilias (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1529-1459)
- Roozbeh Narimani Javid (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9134-8787)
- Pouya Ebrahimi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3694-6863)
- Nazanin Rafiei (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3516-119X)
- Mohammad Hossein Mandegar
- Ali Moradi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1620-430X)
- Polydoros Kampaktsis
- Maryam Taheri
- Omar Khalique (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1850-8665)
- Robert Siegel
- Harsh Kumar
- Bahar Darouei
- Kaveh Hosseini (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5676-3099)
Institutions
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- University of South Florida (US)
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (GB)
- Liaquat National Hospital (PK)
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- St. John Medical Center (US)
- St. Francis Hospital (US)
- Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute (US)
- Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
- Published
- 2026-05-22
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-026-04105-w
- Primary Topic
- Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00