BackgroundTranscatheter valve-in-valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) for the treatment of failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. However, the benefit of ViV-TAVR compared with Redo-SAVR remains debated with regard to short-term hemodynamic results and short- and long-term clinical outcomes.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare short-term hemodynamic performance and long-term clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVR vs. Redo-SAVR in patients treated for surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve failure.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data prospectively collected in 184 patients who underwent Redo-SAVR or ViV-TAVR. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before and after the procedure and analyzed in an echocardiography core laboratory using the new Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the outcomes between both procedures.ResultsViV-TAVR showed lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance (39.2% vs. 67.7%,p< 0.001) at 30 days, which was essentially driven by a higher rate (56.2% vs. 28.8%,p= 0.001) of high residual gradient (mean transvalvular gradient ≥20 mm Hg). Despite a trend for higher 30-day mortality in the Redo-SAVR vs. ViV-TAVR group (8.7% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 3.70 [0.77-17.6];p= 0.10), the long-term mortality was significantly lower (24.2% vs. 50.1% at 8 years; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.48 [0.26-0.91];p= 0.03) in the Redo-SAVR group. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, Redo-SAVR remained significantly associated with reduced long-term mortality compared with ViV-TAVR (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.22-0.46];p< 0.001).ConclusionsViV-TAVR was associated with a lower rate of intended hemodynamic performance and numerically lower mortality at 30 days but higher rates of long-term mortality compared with Redo-SAVR.