Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41156028›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo SAVR for Degenerated Biological Prosthesis: A Narrative Review Stating Our Experience.

Salvatore Torre, Laura Asta, Adriana Sbrigata, Sebastiano Castrovinci, Enrico Amoncelli, Antonio Segreto, Giuseppe Maria Raffa, Gioachino Agostino Giarratana, Vincenzo Argano, Calogera Pisano

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Salvatore TorreCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0711-1067
Laura AstaCardiac Surgery Department, Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University "G.d'Annunzio" Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5929-3299
Adriana SbrigataCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0009-0000-3384-4363
Sebastiano CastrovinciCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.
Enrico AmoncelliCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.
Antonio SegretoCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4983-4447
Giuseppe Maria RaffaCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7141-2561
Gioachino Agostino GiarratanaCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.
Vincenzo ArganoCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.
Calogera PisanoCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Area (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is still the gold-standard treatment for aortic stenosis. However, the increasing use of biological prostheses, even in young patients, makes Valve-in-Valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) an attractive option compared to redo SAVR, thanks to its lower invasiveness and sometimes greater safety. However, there are several technical and anatomical aspects to consider. Therefore, the aim of our review is to examine the main mechanisms responsible for the degeneration of biological prostheses and, subsequently, to analyze the hemodynamic (transvalvular gradients, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular leakage) and technical (risk of coronary obstruction, prosthetic implantation strategy) aspects that most influence the procedure's success and long-term outcomes. To this end, we present a case we treated in order to enhance our readers' experience with this procedure. Currently, ViV TAVI is approved for patients at high surgical risk, but it could become a valid option compared to redo SAVR; however, more clinical trials are needed to better analyze the survival differences between these two procedures. Furthermore, it remains a therapeutic strategy reserved for highly specialized centers due to the technical difficulties involved in its execution.

Indexed as

degenerated biological prosthesisredo surgical aortic valve replacementtranscatheter aortic valve implantationvalve-in-valve procedure

Identifiers

PMID41156028
PMCPMC12564827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.