Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type

Uri Landes*, Ilan Richter, Haim Danenberg, Ran Kornowski, Janarthanan Sathananthan, Ole De Backer, Lars Søndergaard, Mohamed Abdel-Wahab, Sung Han Yoon, Raj R. Makkar, Holger Thiele, Won Keun Kim, Christian Hamm, Nicola Buzzatti, Matteo Montorfano, Sebastian Ludwig, Niklas Schofer, Lisa Voigtlaender, Mayra Guerrero, Abdallah El SabbaghJosep Rodés-Cabau, Jules Mesnier, Taishi Okuno, Thomas Pilgrim, Claudia Fiorina, Antonio Colombo, Antonio Mangieri, Helene Eltchaninoff, Luis Nombela-Franco, Maarten P.H. Van Wiechen, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, Didier Tchétché, Wolfgang H. Schoels, Matthias Kullmer, Marco Barbanti, Corrado Tamburino, Jan Malte Sinning, Baravan Al-Kassou, Gidon Y. Perlman, Alfonso Ielasi, Chiara Fraccaro, Giuseppe Tarantini, Federico De Marco, Guy Witberg, Simon R. Redwood, John C. Lisko, Vasilis C. Babaliaros, Mika Laine, Roberto Nerla, Ariel Finkelstein, Amnon Eitan, Ronen Jaffe, Philipp Ruile, Franz J. Neumann, Nicolo Piazza, Horst Sievert, Kolja Sievert, Marco Russo, Martin Andreas, Matjaz Bunc, Azeem Latib, Sharon Bruoha, Rebecca Godfrey, David Hildick-Smith, Israel Barbash, Amit Segev, Pál Maurovich-Horvat, Balint Szilveszter, Konstantinos Spargias, Dionisis Aravadinos, Tamim M. Nazif, Martin B. Leon, John G. Webb

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV. Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]). Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm2; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176). Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1543-1554
Number of pages12
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number15
StatePublished - 8 Aug 2022


  • TAVR
  • balloon-expandable valve
  • redo TAVR
  • self-expanding valve
  • valve-in-valve


Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this