
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Cardiovasc. Med.
Sec. Structural Interventional Cardiology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1465409
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Despite the lack of randomized-controlled trials in patients with failed bioprosthetic valves, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is increasingly used. Methods: Outcomes of consecutive patients treated with ViV-TAVR (N=100) at our tertiary heart center between 2014 and 2022 were compared to TAVR (N=2216) in native valves. Results: Patients median age was 78.5 years (IQR 70.0-84.0) in ViV-TAVR compared to 81.0 (IQR 77.0-85.0) in patients with native aortic stenosis (p<0.01) with a similar percentage of females in both groups (42% vs. 49.3%, p=0.18). The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score for mortality was significantly higher in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR (5.1% {IQR 2.6-8.6%} vs. 3.8% {IQR 2.4-6.3%}, p<0.01). ViV-TAVR was performed in degenerated surgical bioprostheses in 88% and in degenerated transcatheter bioprostheses in 12%. Stenosis was the main mechanism of bioprosthetic valve failure (70%), whereas severe regurgitation was the leading cause in 30%. The overall rate of device success amounted to 66% in ViV-TAVR, compared to 96.1% in TAVR (p<0.01) and ViV-TAVR was independently associated with reduced device success (OR: 0.07, 95%CI: 0.045-0.12, p<0.01) in multivariate regression. While ViV-TAVR decreased peak and mean gradients significantly, in 31% of patients elevated mean gradients (≥20mmHg) were observed at discharge. Small native prosthesis diameter (<20mm) was the strongest predictor (OR 3.8, 95%CI: 1.5-9.2, p=0.01) independently associated with elevated gradients after ViV-TAVR.ViV-TAVR for treatment of degenerated bioprostheses improves aortic valve function. However, device success is lower compared to TAVR in native aortic valve disease, mainly due to elevated postprocedural mean gradients, especially in small bioprostheses.
Keywords: Valve in valve aortic replacement, Bioprosthetic valve degeneration, transcatheter aortic replacement, Device success, bioprosthetic valve failure
Received: 16 Jul 2024; Accepted: 24 Mar 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Paukovitsch, Dilaver, Felbel, Krohn-Grimberghe, Buckert, Mörike, Schneider, Liewald, Rottbauer and Gonska. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Michael Paukovitsch, Ulm University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.