When redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not enough: self-expanding TAVR explant and the next frontier of lifetime valve management

Qamar and colleagues present a case that is easy to describe but difficult to dismiss (1). An 83-year-old man with prior surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using a 23-mm Mosaic valve underwent valve-in-valve transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm Evolut R, later developed combined valvular and paravalvular aortic insufficiency, and was not considered a candidate for a further transcatheter valve intervention, which would have represented a third aortic valve procedure, because left main and right coronary stents protruded into the sinuses and were judged, together with the surrounding anatomy, to confer significant coronary-obstruction risk (1). The surgical strategy of high cannulation and clamp positioning, because the Evolut frame extended above the sinotubular junction, followed by frame “recapture” using heavy silk sutures and a short segment of pump tubing allowed successful explant and redo surgical valve replacement without disruption of the protruding coronary stents (1). From a structural cardiology perspective, this is more than an elegant operative video; it is a reminder that anatomy and the consequences of intervening coronary procedures, not enthusiasm, ultimately determine whether redo-TAVR remains an option (1).

The timing of this case is particularly important. TAVR is no longer confined to elderly or prohibitive-risk patients, and the field has moved decisively into an era in which lifetime valve management matters (2,3). In a U.S. national analysis, TAVR use in patients younger than 65 years increased 2.7-fold between 2015 and 2021 (2). Current American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) valvular heart disease guidelines still favor surgery in patients younger than 65 years or in those with life expectancy exceeding 20 years, but real-world expansion of TAVR across age and risk categories has made future reintervention a practical, rather than theoretical, issue (3). Reintervention after TAVR remains uncommon on a per-patient basis, yet the absolute number is rising: in the FRANCE 2 and FRANCE TAVI registries, cumulative reintervention reached 1.7% at 8 years, and in a recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) analysis of more than 410,000 TAVR patients, both redo-TAVR and TAVR explant volumes continued to increase, with redo-TAVR predominating beyond 5 years after the index procedure (4,5). The central question is therefore no longer whether failed TAVR will be encountered, but whether the initial procedure and every subsequent valve or coronary intervention preserve a safe exit strategy when failure occurs (6).

That is where this case becomes especially instructive. Redo-TAVR is an excellent therapy in the right patient, but it is only as good as the anatomy it inherits. In the present case, repeat transcatheter treatment was not pursued because the treating team judged that the protruding coronary stents, together with the surrounding anatomy, created prohibitive coronary risk (1). Structural cardiologists increasingly recognize that failed TAVR can be managed percutaneously when the mechanism is isolated leaflet degeneration or transcatheter-valve dysfunction in the setting of favorable computed tomography (CT) anatomy, preserved coronary clearance, no active infection, and no need for concomitant surgery (7-10). The opposite is also true: redo-TAVR becomes far less attractive when there is high risk of coronary obstruction or sinus sequestration, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), major paravalvular leak not amenable to catheter-based correction, infective endocarditis, multivalve disease, or a need for concomitant coronary, mitral, or aortic surgery (6-9). In that sense, this case is not an argument against redo-TAVR; it is an argument against assuming that redo-TAVR will remain universally available (1,6,9). The case therefore extends lifetime valve planning beyond the index valve procedure: coronary interventions performed during the intervening years may also preserve or foreclose future transcatheter options (6-8).

The implications for coronary interventionists deserve particular emphasis. In Qamar et al., the indication, urgency, and technical alternatives available during the prior coronary interventions are not reported, and the case should not be interpreted as criticism of the original percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy. Nevertheless, it illustrates that PCI after SAVR, TAVR, or valve-in-valve TAVR may influence the feasibility of later valve treatment. Baig and colleagues described a proximal right coronary stent protruding 7 mm into the sinus of Valsalva, in which patient-specific simulation predicted interaction with the TAVR deployment balloon and prompted simultaneous coronary-balloon inflation to preserve stent geometry during valve implantation (11). Complementary patient-specific ex vivo data from Beneduce et al. showed that chimney stents could become distorted or underexpanded through interactions with the index self-expanding frame, the second transcatheter valve, or the aortic wall; when severe commissural misalignment was combined with high redo-valve implantation, subsequent coronary access and PCI were unfeasible in 75% of tested cases (12). Although these case-level and bench findings cannot be generalized to every conventional ostial coronary stent, they support a practical principle: whenever clinically feasible, PCI after aortic valve replacement should consider not only immediate angiographic success, but also future coronary engagement, valve-frame interaction, and redo-TAVR feasibility.

Self-expanding valves deserve special emphasis because their later surgical problem is not identical to that of balloon-expandable platforms. The Evolut family’s tall supra-annular nitinol frame provides important hemodynamic advantages, particularly in small annuli, but that same design creates a long interface with the aortic root and ascending aorta and can complicate both future coronary reaccess and eventual explant (7,8). The RE-ACCESS study showed that unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR occurred almost exclusively after Evolut implantation, and the ALIGN-ACCESS study demonstrated that even with commissural alignment, selective coronary access remains easier after SAPIEN 3 than after aligned or misaligned supra-annular valves (13,14). For the surgeon, the same geometry matters in a different way: self-expanding frames can be intimately adherent to the aortic wall, and in Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-based analyses they are associated with more frequent ascending aortic replacement at explant than balloon-expandable devices (1,15). Thus, what appears favorable from a hemodynamic standpoint at the time of implantation may be less forgiving when the patient later requires either coronary reaccess or surgical rescue (7,8,13-15). These tradeoffs reinforce the need for valve- and anatomy-specific CT planning rather than categorical preference for or avoidance of a particular platform (7,8).

A further point worth emphasizing is that the present report should not be generalized to all self-expanding TAVR explants as though they were technically equivalent. This was a valve-in-valve explant, and that distinction matters. In valve-in-valve cases, the prior surgical bioprosthesis may provide a more favorable boundary for dissection than native-root TAVR, where the self-expanding frame is deployed directly against the native annulus and aortic root. In the University of Michigan 10-year experience, native TAVR explants were associated with a higher explant-difficulty score and numerically higher operative mortality than valve-in-valve explants, emphasizing that “failed self-expanding TAVR explant” is not a single operative entity (1,16). The value of the present case, therefore, is not that it proves self-expanding explant is broadly reproducible, but that it illustrates a specific and increasingly relevant scenario: a valve-in-valve Evolut failure in which redo-TAVR was judged unsuitable because of coronary anatomy and the protruding coronary stents (1,16).

The contemporary comparative data also need to be interpreted with discipline. In the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR international registry, redo-TAVR was associated with lower observed 30-day mortality than explant (3.4% vs. 13.6%) and lower 1-year mortality (15.4% vs. 32.4%) (9). Similar signals appear in modern redo-TAVR series, including the TVT-based balloon-expandable registry, which reported acceptable early and 1-year outcomes in appropriately selected patients (10). By contrast, explant cohorts consistently show high early risk: in EXPLANT-TAVR, 30-day mortality was 13.1% and 1-year mortality 28.5%; in the STS experience of cardiac surgery after prior TAVR, operative mortality was 15.5% and standard risk models underestimated that hazard (17,18). A systematic review and meta-analysis further underscores the substantial operative burden of TAVR explant and the heterogeneity of the available observational evidence (19). However, it would be misleading to interpret these observational comparisons as evidence that redo-TAVR is intrinsically superior to explant for every patient with failed TAVR. These groups are fundamentally different. Explant patients are enriched for endocarditis, severe PPM, major paravalvular leak, unfavorable coronary anatomy, urgent presentations, and concomitant procedures; precisely the factors that often make redo-TAVR infeasible in the first place (6,9,17,19). Lower mortality after redo-TAVR is therefore a real observation, but not proof of interchangeability between the two strategies (6,9,10,17).

The operative details in this case are not incidental to the structural-heart discussion; they are the reason the case matters. Qamar et al. used a deliberately high aortic strategy, retrograde cardioplegia, and a recapture maneuver that reduced radial force before extraction (1). These principles align with the Heart Valve Collaboratory expert consensus on transcatheter heart-valve explantation: preoperative CT should define the relationship of the frame to the sinotubular junction, coronary ostia, and any prior coronary hardware; aortotomy and cannulation strategy must anticipate the height of the frame; and controlled frame constriction or recapture helps create a safer dissection plane and may reduce the need for root replacement (20). At the same time, the field should acknowledge evidentiary hierarchy. Broad concepts such as preoperative imaging, planned exposure, cautious circumferential dissection, and low threshold for escalation to root or ascending-aortic work are supported by registries and expert consensus (15,17,20). More specific maneuvers such as lasso techniques, tube recapture, and other device-specific tricks remain grounded mainly in technical reports, operative videos, and small series (1,20). That does not make them unimportant; it simply means we should describe them as promising surgical tactics rather than settled comparative evidence (1,20).

The broader structural-cardiology lesson is forward planning. Device selection, commissural alignment, implant depth, anticipated coronary reaccess, and the risk of future PPM should all be part of the first TAVR discussion, not merely the reintervention conversation years later (3,6-8,13,14). This does not mean self-expanding valves should be avoided; in many anatomies they remain an important option, particularly when supra-annular hemodynamics are desired (6,7). It does mean that the structural heart team should stop thinking of the index TAVR as a terminal event. A small surgical valve, low coronary heights, narrow sinuses, misalignment, or prior ostial stenting may not preclude TAVR today, but they may substantially narrow tomorrow’s options (3,7,8,13,14).

This concern becomes particularly important in younger patients with long life expectancy and restrictive aortic-root anatomy. The clinical concept of a “small aorta” is best understood through its individual anatomic components, including annular dimensions, sinus width, sinotubular-junction height and diameter, coronary height, and projected valve-to-aorta clearance. In a single-center post-TAVR CT study of 330 predominantly elderly Japanese patients, Takaseya et al. found simulated high risk of coronary obstruction during future redo-TAVR in 71.1% of self-expanding and 32.2% of balloon-expandable valve recipients; patients categorized as high risk had smaller aortic-root dimensions (21). These findings are based on CT simulation rather than observed redo-TAVR outcomes and should not be generalized beyond the population studied. Nevertheless, they reinforce an anatomy-based principle: restrictive root geometry may substantially narrow future reintervention options, particularly when the anticipated treatment horizon extends over several decades. Recent work further emphasizes that index implant height, frame expansion, geometry, and the relationship between the projected neoskirt and coronary ostia should be optimized with future redo-TAVR in mind, while recognizing that not every adverse geometric feature can be corrected after deployment (22).

This is also where the structural cardiologist’s role becomes most visible. Coronary height, sinus width, sinotubular junction geometry, commissural alignment, valve frame height, and anticipated reaccess should no longer be treated as secondary procedural details, particularly in younger patients or in those with established coronary artery disease. The current case makes that point vividly: the protruding coronary stents were a decisive feature in the heart team’s determination that another transcatheter valve procedure was unsafe (1). Studies of coronary access after TAVR have already shown that supra-annular platforms, especially when misaligned or implanted in unfavorable sinus anatomy, can complicate later coronary engagement and future valve-in-valve planning (13,14). From that standpoint, the first TAVR is also the first reintervention decision. The goal is not to avoid self-expanding valves categorically, but to match device selection and implantation strategy to the patient’s anticipated lifetime pathway so that future coronary access, redo-TAVR feasibility, and the possibility of surgical rescue remain available whenever anatomically feasible (3,6-8,13,14,22). The same prospective discipline should extend to later PCI, because coronary hardware may alter both the safety of a subsequent valve procedure and the feasibility of coronary access thereafter (11,12).

Lifetime planning must also begin with the initial surgical operation. When SAVR is selected, the future pathway depends not only on whether a bioprosthesis is used, but also on prosthesis-specific durability, hemodynamics, and true internal diameter. The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-STS-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force emphasizes that labeled surgical-valve size is not itself a true physical dimension and that minimum internal diameter is especially relevant when future valve-in-valve therapy is anticipated (23). In a meta-analysis of 8,561 patients, aortic root enlargement reduced moderate and severe PPM without a significant increase in early mortality, although bypass and cross-clamp times were longer and no late-survival advantage was demonstrated (24). Similarly, among 1,006 aortic valve-in-valve procedures, a failed surgical-valve internal diameter of 20 mm or less was associated with lower 8-year survival, while pre-existing severe PPM independently predicted later reintervention (25). These findings support careful prosthesis selection and selective consideration of annular or root enlargement, which may preserve future valve-in-valve options in selected patients. However, whether either strategy would have altered this patient’s later course cannot be determined retrospectively. For appropriately selected younger patients willing and able to accept lifelong vitamin K antagonist therapy, mechanical AVR also remains a legitimate strategy for avoiding serial bioprosthetic degeneration; its durability must be balanced against bleeding, thromboembolic, pregnancy, adherence, and lifestyle considerations through shared decision-making (3).

A practical framework for lifetime planning and reintervention is summarized in Table 1, and selected contemporary evidence is presented in Table 2. Finally, the case has implications beyond individual operator technique. Contemporary data show that procedural complexity rises substantially when concomitant coronary, mitral, or aortic intervention is required (17,18,20). That pattern supports a broader systems message: as failed TAVR becomes more frequent, the relevant question will not simply be whether a center can implant transcatheter valves, but whether it can also manage the anatomies in which transcatheter rescue fails. In that sense, the expansion of TAVR should be accompanied by parallel growth in institutional readiness for complex reintervention, including advanced imaging, multidisciplinary planning, and surgical teams comfortable with aortic root and coronary-adjacent dissection (6,17,18,20). For the structural heart community, the lesson is straightforward: preserving a full reintervention toolbox requires coordinated valve, imaging, and coronary planning, as well as honest recognition of when referral to an experienced center is itself the best procedural decision.

Table 1. Practical framework for choosing redo-TAVR vs. surgical explant after transcatheter valve failure.

Clinical/anatomic feature	Redo-TAVR generally favored	Surgical explant generally favored
Isolated transcatheter leaflet degeneration or regurgitation with favorable CT anatomy	Yes	No
High risk of coronary obstruction or sinus sequestration	No	Yes
Protruding ostial coronary stents or other coronary hardware threatening the projected neoskirt or future coronary access	Only if CT-based planning predicts acceptable coronary-obstruction risk and preserved future coronary access	Yes, when coronary hardware creates prohibitive obstruction or access risk
Active infective endocarditis	No	Yes
Severe PPM or small surgical-valve true internal diameter likely to cause unacceptable residual gradients	Usually no	Yes
Major paravalvular leak not likely to be corrected percutaneously	Usually no	Yes
Need for concomitant CABG, mitral, tricuspid, or thoracic aortic surgery	No	Yes
Very high surgical risk with favorable coronary and annular anatomy	Yes	Sometimes prohibitive

CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CT, computed tomography; PPM, prosthesis-patient mismatch; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Table 2. Selected evidence informing failed-TAVR reintervention and lifetime planning.

Study	Population/design	Key finding	Editorial implication
Tang et al., 2023 (EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR) (9)	396 patients; international comparative registry	30-day mortality 3.4% with redo-TAVR vs. 13.6% with explant; 1-year mortality 15.4% vs. 32.4%	Early outcomes favor redo-TAVR, but populations are not interchangeable
Bapat et al., 2021 (EXPLANT-TAVR) (17)	International explant registry	30-day mortality 13.1%; 1-year mortality 28.5%	Explant remains high-risk even in experienced centers
Makkar et al., 2023 (10)	1,320 redo-TAVR cases; TVT registry	Redo-TAVR had acceptable early and 1-year outcomes in selected patients	Redo-TAVR is a viable strategy when anatomy permits
Fukuhara et al., 2022 (15)	STS analysis of balloon-expandable vs. self-expanding explants	Self-expanding explants required more ascending-aortic replacement (22% vs. 9%)	Valve type influences operative complexity even if mortality is similarly high
Bowdish et al., 2024 (18)	STS study of cardiac surgery after prior TAVR	Operative mortality 15.5%; existing risk models underperformed	Post-TAVR surgery is riskier than standard calculators suggest
Bapat et al., 2024 (7)	State-of-the-art review and systematic redo-TAVR planning framework	Redo feasibility depends on index/second-valve design, implant position, neoskirt and coronary-risk planes, and coronary/aortic clearance	Redo-TAVR must be planned for a specific valve combination and patient anatomy
Baig et al., 2022; Beneduce et al., 2025 (11,12)	Case report with patient-specific simulation; ex vivo redo-TAVR models	Protruding or chimney stents may interact with valve frames and become distorted or underexpanded, compromising coronary access	PCI and coronary-protection strategies can influence later valve feasibility, although the evidence is case-level and mechanistic
Takaseya et al., 2026 (21)	Single-center post-TAVR CT simulation; 330 Japanese patients	Simulated high obstruction risk was 71.1% after self-expanding and 32.2% after balloon-expandable valves; high-risk patients had smaller roots	Restrictive root anatomy may sharply narrow future redo-TAVR options; findings are simulation-based
Yu et al., 2019; Bleiziffer et al., 2020 (24,25)	Meta-analysis of root enlargement; long-term registry of 1,006 valve-in-valve procedures	Enlargement reduced PPM; small failed-valve internal diameter and severe pre-existing PPM adversely affected long-term valve-in-valve outcomes	Initial SAVR prosthesis size, true internal diameter, and PPM prevention shape later treatment options

CT, computed tomography; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PPM, prosthesis-patient mismatch; SAVR, surgical aortic valve replacement; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TVT, transcatheter valve therapy.

In that sense, this short operative report carries an outsized message. It reminds us that the success metric for a structural heart program is not only the 30-day outcome of the index TAVR, but also whether the initial valve decision and each subsequent coronary or valve intervention preserved safe options when the valve fails. The next decade will not be defined simply by better devices or more elegant reinterventions; it will be defined by whether structural cardiologists and surgeons plan together for the entire arc of aortic valve disease. When redo-TAVR is anatomically and clinically feasible, it offers an attractive less-invasive option. When it is not, as in this case, surgical explant must remain part of the armamentarium, and the best structural programs will be those that are disciplined enough to plan several steps ahead while preserving more than one safe exit (1,6,9).

Supplementary

The article’s supplementary files as

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.