English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background The growing use of surgical bioprostheses raises concerns about a future reoperation for bioprosthesis degeneration. There are few data on outcome after transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation (TMVI) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR). Purpose To compare the feasibility, safety and outcomes of TMVI versus SMVR for degenerated mitral bioprosthesis in high-risk patients. Methods In our institution, 52 patients underwent TMVI by transseptal approach and 33 SMVR for degenerated mitral bioprosthesis. The composite endpoint of event-free survival included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, major bleeding, hospitalization for heart failure or mitral valve reintervention. Results Mean age and EuroSCORE II were higher in TMVI group vs. SMVR group (age 63±21 years vs. 51±15 years, p=0.002; EuroSCORE II 12.5±12.2% vs. 6.2±3.3%, p=0.001) (Table). In-hospital mortality was 3.8% after TMVI vs. 3.0% after SMVR (p=1.0). Median follow-up was 2.2 years. At 5 years, survival was 69.7±9.4% after TMVI vs. 86.6±7.6% after SMVR (p=0.10) and event-free survival was lower after TMVI (40.1±9.9% vs 78.7±8.8% respectively, p=0.003) (Figure). In multivariate analysis, older age (p=0.02), neurologic history (p=0.05) and non-elective procedure (p&amp;lt;0.0001) were associated with lower event-free survival, while TMVI vs. SMVR was no longer significant (p=0.17). At last follow-up, 84% patients from TMVI group and 78% from SMVR group were NYHA I-II class. Mean mitral valve gradient and pulmonary artery systolic pressure were respectively 6.8±2.5 mmHg and 45±14 mmHg in TMVI group, and 4.8±2.0 mmHg and 37±11 mmHg in SMVR group. Conclusion TMVI is an alternative to SMVR in high-risk patients with degenerated mitral bioprosthesis. Comparison of mid-term results of the two techniques must take into account the differences in patient characteristics. Event-free survival Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Transseptal transcatheter mitral valve implantation versus redo surgical mitral valve replacement for degenerated mitral bioprostheses