REpeat Intervention for Failed Surgical BioProsthEtic AorTic Valves (REPEAT): A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement to Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
The overall hypothesis is that redo aortic valve replacement (rAVR) is superior to valve-invalve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) for the composite endpoint of freedom from all-cause mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure or aortic valve re-intervention at 5 years.
• Indication for repeat intervention for failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis due to structural valve deterioration (SVD; prosthesis stenosis and/or transprosthetic insufficiency);
• Low to intermediate surgical risk (i.e., Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality of \< 8%);
• Age \> 18 and \< 75 years;
• Both rAVR and ViV-TAVR are judged to be reasonable options based on evaluation by the local Heart Team