Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement : meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Aims: To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses. Methods: Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021. Results: Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22–1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22–2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02–1.05, P < 0.001). Conclusion: ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted

Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement versus proximal aortic replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative approach (with proximal aortic replacement with or without hemiarch replacement) versus an aggressive approach (with total aortic arch replacement) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up comparing the aforementioned approaches to treat patients with ATAAD. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 5243 patients with follow-up (Conservative: 3676 patients; Aggressive: 1567 patients). We observed a statistically significant difference in overall survival favoring the aggressive approach (hazard ratios [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.98, p = .022), but no statistically significant difference in the risk of reoperation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.2, p = .439) in the overall follow-up. Landmark analyses revealed that, in the first 3 months after the procedure, mortality rates were comparable between conservative and aggressive approaches (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.24, p = .627), but the results beyond 3 months showed improved survival in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, p < .001). The landmark analyses also revealed that, in the first 7 years after the procedure, reoperation rates were comparable between the approaches (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40, p = .848), but the results beyond 7 years showed a lower risk of reoperation in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.75, p = .025). CONCLUSION: The aggressive approach seems to confer better long-term survival and lower risk of the need for reoperation in the follow-up of patients treated for ATAAD