Pooled Analysis of Valve‐in‐Valve and Valve‐in‐Ring Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Using the SAPIEN Valve

Background Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using the Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) transcatheter heart valve has become the preferred treatment for high‐risk patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves or prior surgical mitral valve repairs. Differences in anatomy and procedural complexity between valve‐in‐valve TMVR (ViV‐TMVR) and valve‐in‐ring TMVR (ViR‐TMVR) may influence clinical outcomes. Methods We systematically searched OVID Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies published between 2015 and 2022 comparing ViV‐TMVR and ViR‐TMVR. The primary end point was 30‐day all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included in‐hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, reintervention, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and device embolization. Random‐effects models were used to pool outcomes. Results Eight studies including 1947 patients (ViV‐TMVR: 1435; ViR‐TMVR: 512) were analyzed. Patients undergoing ViV‐TMVR were older and had a greater baseline comorbidity burden. No significant differences were observed in 30‐day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.47–1.05]; I 2 =0%) or in‐hospital mortality (OR: 1.05 [95% CI: 0.34–3.21]; I 2 =3%). Similarly, stroke, major bleeding, and device embolization did not differ significantly between groups. However, ViV‐TMVR was associated with lower rates of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (OR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.18–0.51]), reintervention (OR: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.13–0.30]), and acute kidney injury (OR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.29–0.90]), with no significant heterogeneity. Conclusions Compared with ViR‐TMVR, ViV‐TMVR was associated with lower rates of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, reintervention, and acute kidney injury, whereas mortality and other major complications were comparable. These findings may inform patient selection and procedural planning for transcatheter mitral valve interventions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.125.044789
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
article

Pooled Analysis of Valve‐in‐Valve and Valve‐in‐Ring Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Using the SAPIEN Valve

Sahar Samimi, Mary Schleicher, Safi U. Khan, Nadeen N. Faza et al.
Journal of the American Heart Association
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
article

Pooled Analysis of Valve‐in‐Valve and Valve‐in‐Ring Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Using the SAPIEN Valve

Sahar Samimi, Mary Schleicher, Safi U. Khan, Nadeen N. Faza, Chloé Kharsa, Neal S. Kleiman, Marvin D. Atkins, USMAN AKBAR, Joe Aoun, Hassaan Arshad, Ankit Agrawal, Stephen H. Little, Michael J. Reardon, Sachin S. Goel, Ahmad N. Lone, Zhihao Zhu
article en

Abstract

Background Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using the Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) transcatheter heart valve has become the preferred treatment for high‐risk patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves or prior surgical mitral valve repairs. Differences in anatomy and procedural complexity between valve‐in‐valve TMVR (ViV‐TMVR) and valve‐in‐ring TMVR (ViR‐TMVR) may influence clinical outcomes. Methods We systematically searched OVID Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies published between 2015 and 2022 comparing ViV‐TMVR and ViR‐TMVR. The primary end point was 30‐day all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included in‐hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, reintervention, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and device embolization. Random‐effects models were used to pool outcomes. Results Eight studies including 1947 patients (ViV‐TMVR: 1435; ViR‐TMVR: 512) were analyzed. Patients undergoing ViV‐TMVR were older and had a greater baseline comorbidity burden. No significant differences were observed in 30‐day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.47–1.05]; I 2 =0%) or in‐hospital mortality (OR: 1.05 [95% CI: 0.34–3.21]; I 2 =3%). Similarly, stroke, major bleeding, and device embolization did not differ significantly between groups. However, ViV‐TMVR was associated with lower rates of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (OR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.18–0.51]), reintervention (OR: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.13–0.30]), and acute kidney injury (OR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.29–0.90]), with no significant heterogeneity. Conclusions Compared with ViR‐TMVR, ViV‐TMVR was associated with lower rates of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, reintervention, and acute kidney injury, whereas mortality and other major complications were comparable. These findings may inform patient selection and procedural planning for transcatheter mitral valve interventions.

Journal of the American Heart Association
Houston Methodist (US), Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US), Cleveland Clinic (US), SUNY Upstate Medical University (US), Ark Medical Center (US), Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
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.