{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032758620689655175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.448717948717949, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

With the growing contemporary use of bioprosthetic valves, whose limited long‐term durability has been well‐documented, an increase in the need for reintervention is expected. We perform a meta‐analysis to compare the current standard of care, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo SAVR) with the less invasive alternative, valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) for treating structural valve deterioration.