Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves vs. native aortic stenosis: insights from a meta-analysis.

There is no meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves (ViV-TAVI) and native valve TAVI for aortic stenosis (NV-TAVI). We aimed to investigate clinical outcomes between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI using a meta-analysis. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched through April 2020 to investigate the comparative outcomes between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI. The main outcomes were short-term (30-day/in-hospital) mortality, pacemaker implantation (PMI), life threatening and/or major bleeding, stroke, and coronary obstruction, and long-term (1-year) mortality and stroke. Our search identified 5 observational studies enrolling a total of 8428 patients (1442 patients with ViV-TAVI and 6986 with NV-TAVI). ViV-TAVI was associated with significantly lower rates of short-term mortality, PMI, and life threatening and/or major bleeding, compared with NV-TAVI (relative risk [RR] [95% CI] 0.54 [0.34-0.84], P = 0.007; 0.25 [0.19-0.35], P < 0.0001; 0.64 [0.46-0.89], P = 0.008, respectively). There were no significant differences in rates of short-term stroke and coronary obstruction between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI (RR [95% CI] 0.59 [0.35-1.01], P = 0.06; 1.86 [0.78-4.41], P = 0.16, respectively). ViV-TAVI was also associated with a significantly lower rate of 1-year mortality compared with NV-TAVI (RR [95% CI] 0.64 [0.51-0.81], P = 0.0002), whereas there was no significant difference in long-term stroke (RR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.45-1.12], P = 0.51). ViV-TAVI was associated with significantly lower rates of short-term mortality, PMI, and life threatening and/or major bleeding, and long-term mortality, without increased risks of stroke and coronary obstruction, compared with NV-TAVI.