Lior Lupu, Pavan Reddy, Dan Haberman, Matteo Cellamare, Cheng Zhang, Vaishnavi Sawant, Hank Rappaport, Kalyan R Chitturi, Abhishek Chaturvedi, Waiel Abusnina, Jeffrey E Cohen, Christian C Shults, Thomas E MacGillivray, Lowell F Satler, Itsik Ben-Dor, Ron Waksman, Toby Rogers
{"title":"瓣膜再介入的决策:经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外植体手术。","authors":"Lior Lupu, Pavan Reddy, Dan Haberman, Matteo Cellamare, Cheng Zhang, Vaishnavi Sawant, Hank Rappaport, Kalyan R Chitturi, Abhishek Chaturvedi, Waiel Abusnina, Jeffrey E Cohen, Christian C Shults, Thomas E MacGillivray, Lowell F Satler, Itsik Ben-Dor, Ron Waksman, Toby Rogers","doi":"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.08.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Data remain limited on factors influencing the selection of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical explant in patients with failing transcatheter heart valves. This study aimed to identify clinical and procedural factors guiding treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective study included all patients who underwent aortic valve reintervention following prior TAVR at a U.S. tertiary referral center between January 2015 and June 2024. Clinical records, imaging, and Heart Team notes were reviewed to determine rationale for treatment selection. Procedural details and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, rehospitalization, or stroke) were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 47 patients, 24 (51 %) underwent surgical explant and 23 (49 %) redo-TAVR. The explant group was significantly younger (75 vs. 79 years; p = 0.018), with similar gender distribution (31.9 % female). Time to reintervention was comparable (27.8 vs. 34.2 months; p = 0.75). Common indications for explant included endocarditis (33.3 %), patient-prosthesis mismatch (16.7 %), prior valve-in-valve (16.7 %), annular rupture risk (12.5 %), need for concomitant surgery (8.3 %), and coronary obstruction risk (8.3 %). Thirty-day and one-year MACE rates were significantly higher with explant (30.4 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.029; 59.1 % vs. 21.4 %, p = 0.041). Mortality was numerically higher but not statistically significant. Patients undergoing explant often had more comorbidities and required complex procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients undergoing reintervention after TAVR, treatment was evenly split between redo-TAVR and explant, underscoring the importance of lifetime planning at initial TAVR. This analysis shows the two groups represent inherently different patient populations and highlights the need for randomized trials to define optimal treatment pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":47657,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision-making in valve reintervention: Redo-Transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. explant surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Lior Lupu, Pavan Reddy, Dan Haberman, Matteo Cellamare, Cheng Zhang, Vaishnavi Sawant, Hank Rappaport, Kalyan R Chitturi, Abhishek Chaturvedi, Waiel Abusnina, Jeffrey E Cohen, Christian C Shults, Thomas E MacGillivray, Lowell F Satler, Itsik Ben-Dor, Ron Waksman, Toby Rogers\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.08.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Data remain limited on factors influencing the selection of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical explant in patients with failing transcatheter heart valves. This study aimed to identify clinical and procedural factors guiding treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective study included all patients who underwent aortic valve reintervention following prior TAVR at a U.S. tertiary referral center between January 2015 and June 2024. Clinical records, imaging, and Heart Team notes were reviewed to determine rationale for treatment selection. Procedural details and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, rehospitalization, or stroke) were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 47 patients, 24 (51 %) underwent surgical explant and 23 (49 %) redo-TAVR. The explant group was significantly younger (75 vs. 79 years; p = 0.018), with similar gender distribution (31.9 % female). Time to reintervention was comparable (27.8 vs. 34.2 months; p = 0.75). Common indications for explant included endocarditis (33.3 %), patient-prosthesis mismatch (16.7 %), prior valve-in-valve (16.7 %), annular rupture risk (12.5 %), need for concomitant surgery (8.3 %), and coronary obstruction risk (8.3 %). Thirty-day and one-year MACE rates were significantly higher with explant (30.4 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.029; 59.1 % vs. 21.4 %, p = 0.041). Mortality was numerically higher but not statistically significant. Patients undergoing explant often had more comorbidities and required complex procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients undergoing reintervention after TAVR, treatment was evenly split between redo-TAVR and explant, underscoring the importance of lifetime planning at initial TAVR. This analysis shows the two groups represent inherently different patient populations and highlights the need for randomized trials to define optimal treatment pathways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.08.018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.08.018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:影响经导管心脏瓣膜衰竭患者选择经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)或手术置换术的因素仍然有限。本研究旨在确定指导治疗决策的临床和程序因素。方法:这项单中心回顾性研究纳入了2015年1月至2024年6月期间在美国三级转诊中心接受TAVR后主动脉瓣再介入治疗的所有患者。我们回顾了临床记录、影像学和心脏小组的记录,以确定治疗选择的基本原理。收集手术细节和主要心脏不良事件(MACE:死亡、再住院或中风)。结果:在47例患者中,24例(51%)接受了手术移植,23例(49%)接受了修复- tavr。外植体组明显年轻化(75 vs 79; p = 0.018),性别分布相似(31.9%为女性)。再干预的时间具有可比性(27.8个月vs. 34.2个月;p = 0.75)。外植体的常见适应症包括心内膜炎(33.3%),患者-假体不匹配(16.7%),先前瓣膜内瓣膜(16.7%),环破裂风险(12.5%),需要合并手术(8.3%)和冠状动脉阻塞风险(8.3%)。外植体的30天和1年MACE率显著高于对照组(30.4%比0%,p = 0.029; 59.1%比21.4%,p = 0.041)。死亡率在数字上较高,但没有统计学意义。接受外植体移植的患者通常有更多的合并症,需要复杂的手术。结论:在TAVR后再干预的患者中,重新TAVR和外植体的治疗平均分配,强调了初始TAVR时终生计划的重要性。该分析表明,这两组代表了本质上不同的患者群体,并强调需要随机试验来确定最佳治疗途径。
Decision-making in valve reintervention: Redo-Transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. explant surgery.
Objective: Data remain limited on factors influencing the selection of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical explant in patients with failing transcatheter heart valves. This study aimed to identify clinical and procedural factors guiding treatment decisions.
Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included all patients who underwent aortic valve reintervention following prior TAVR at a U.S. tertiary referral center between January 2015 and June 2024. Clinical records, imaging, and Heart Team notes were reviewed to determine rationale for treatment selection. Procedural details and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, rehospitalization, or stroke) were collected.
Results: Among 47 patients, 24 (51 %) underwent surgical explant and 23 (49 %) redo-TAVR. The explant group was significantly younger (75 vs. 79 years; p = 0.018), with similar gender distribution (31.9 % female). Time to reintervention was comparable (27.8 vs. 34.2 months; p = 0.75). Common indications for explant included endocarditis (33.3 %), patient-prosthesis mismatch (16.7 %), prior valve-in-valve (16.7 %), annular rupture risk (12.5 %), need for concomitant surgery (8.3 %), and coronary obstruction risk (8.3 %). Thirty-day and one-year MACE rates were significantly higher with explant (30.4 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.029; 59.1 % vs. 21.4 %, p = 0.041). Mortality was numerically higher but not statistically significant. Patients undergoing explant often had more comorbidities and required complex procedures.
Conclusion: Among patients undergoing reintervention after TAVR, treatment was evenly split between redo-TAVR and explant, underscoring the importance of lifetime planning at initial TAVR. This analysis shows the two groups represent inherently different patient populations and highlights the need for randomized trials to define optimal treatment pathways.
期刊介绍:
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine (CRM) is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original laboratory and clinical investigations related to revascularization therapies in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine publishes articles related to preclinical work and molecular interventions, including angiogenesis, cell therapy, pharmacological interventions, restenosis management, and prevention, including experiments conducted in human subjects, in laboratory animals, and in vitro. Specific areas of interest include percutaneous angioplasty in coronary and peripheral arteries, intervention in structural heart disease, cardiovascular surgery, etc.