Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, PARTNER Trial Investigators et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(17), 1597–1607 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, PARTNER 2 Investigators et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 374(17), 1609–1620 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, PARTNER 3 Investigators et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(18), 1695–1705 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4. Rizik DG, Rajagopal V, Makkar RR et al. Long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the lotus valve vs corevalve/evolutr: a secondary analysis of the REPRISE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open 5(10), e2238792 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Bonacchi M, Dokollari A, Parise O et al. Ministernotomy compared with right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 165(3), 1022–1032 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6. Sá MP, Van den Eynde J, Jacquemyn X et al. Cusp-overlap versus coplanar view in transcatheter aortic valve implantation with self-expandable valves: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 101(3), 639–650 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7. Sá MP, Van den Eynde J, Simonato M et al. Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data. Int. J. Cardiol. 2370, 112–121 (2023).
  Google Scholar
• 8. Sá MP, Jacquemyn X, Tasoudis PT et al. Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data. J. Card. Surg. 37(10), 3300–3310 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9. Laborde F, Fischlein T, Hakim-Meibodi K Cavalier Trial Investigators. et al. Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial)^†. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 49(3), 978–986 (2016). •• One of the only clinical trials on sutureless valve.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Dokollari A, Ramlawi B, Torregrossa G et al. Benefits and pitfalls of the perceval sutureless bioprosthesis. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 8, 789392 (2022). •• One of the first systematic reviews that provides details on clinical outcomes of sutureless valves.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11. Dokollari A, Torregrossa G, Sicouri S et al. Pearls, pitfalls, and surgical indications of the Intuity TM heart valve: a rapid deployment bioprosthesis. A systematic review of the literature. J. Card. Surg. 37(12), 5411–5417 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Dokollari A, Sicouri S, Torregrossa G et al. Conduction block after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg. S0003–4975(22), 01083–01089 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 13. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 42(5), S45–S60 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14. Dokollari A, Margaryan R, Torregrossa G et al. Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. S1553–8389(23), 00129-X (2023).
  Google Scholar
• 15. Sá MP, Jabagi H, Dokollari A et al. Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 99(6), 1886–1896 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16. Dokollari A, Cameli M, Mandoli GE et al. Early and midterm clinical outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic bioprosthetic valve degeneration: two faces of the same medal. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesthesia 35(11), 3223–3231 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17. Kumar V, Sandhu GS, Harper CM et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement programs: clinical outcomes and developments. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 9(8), e015921 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18. Dokollari A, Torregrossa G, Bisleri G et al. Early and long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of sutureless vs. sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 10(5), 224 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19. Tam DY, Dharma C, Rocha RV et al. Transcatheter ViV versus redo surgical AVR for the management of failed biological prosthesis: early and late outcomes in a propensity-matched cohort. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13(6), 765–774 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20. Patel PM, Chiou E, Cao Y et al. Isolated redo aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve transcatheter valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 112(2), 539–545 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21. Bonacchi M, Bacchi B, Cabrucci F et al. Editorial: insights in heart surgery: 2022. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 10, 1184097 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22. Elze MC, Gregson J, Baber U et al. Comparison of propensity score methods and covariate adjustment: evaluation in 4 cardiovascular studies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69(3), 345–357 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat. Med. 25(12), 2084–2106 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. Seder CW, Farrokhyar F, Nayak R et al. Robotic vs thoracoscopic anatomic lung resection in obese patients: a propensity-adjusted analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 114(5), 1879–1885 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25. Ribeiro HB, Rodés-Cabau J, Blanke P et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: insights from the VIVID registry. Eur. Heart J. 39(8), 687–695 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26. Blanke P, Soon J, Dvir D et al. Computed tomography assessment for transcatheter aortic valve in valve implantation: the vancouver approach to predict anatomical risk for coronary obstruction and other considerations. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 10(6), 491–499 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar