What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare the outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves.

April 25, 2026Open Access

C-14 | Comparative Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve TAVR Versus redo-SAVR in Patients with Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Key Result

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and redo surgical aortic valve replacement were compared for the treatment of deteriorating bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Key Points

This study aims to compare the outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves.
Comparison of outcomes for ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR procedures.
Focus on patients presenting with deteriorating bioprosthetic aortic valves.
ViV-TAVR demonstrated favorable outcomes compared to redo-SAVR in specific patient groups.
Significant differences in recovery times and complication rates were observed between the two methods.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%

Abstract

Our study compares the outcomes following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) with redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) for a deteriorating bioprosthetic aortic valve.

Read Full Paperexternally

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Caplan et al. (Wed,) reported a other. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and redo surgical aortic valve replacement were compared for the treatment of deteriorating bioprosthetic aortic valves.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ec5a6b88ba6daa22dabfa3 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2026.104750