BACKGROUND: Recently, the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in inter-mediate-low risk patients has been evaluated in the PARTNER II randomized trial. However, in the last years, this therapy has been employed in this scenario with underreported results, as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: We enrolled 362 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and intermediate-low surgical risk (logEuroSCORE < 20%), treated in our center with TAVI (103 patients) or single SAVR (259 patients) between 2009 and 2014. Patients were matched according to age, gender, logEuroSCORE, and use of bioprosthesis. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 73 ± 10.4 years, and 40.3% were women. LogEuroSCORE and Society Thoracic Surgeons score were 7.0 ± 4.4% and 4.2 ± 2.5%, respectively, with mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52 ± 9%. There were no differences regarding other comorbidities. The length-of-hospitalization was 11 ± 5 days after TAVI vs. 17 ± 9 days after SAVR (p = 0.003). After matched comparison, no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (5.7% after TAVI vs. 2.9% after SAVR, p = 0.687) and 1-year mortality (11.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.381) were found. The combined endpoint of stroke and mortality at 1-year was also similar between both groups (15.7% in TAVI patients vs. 14.4% after SAVR, p = 0.136). Multivariate analysis determined that aortic regurgitation (AR) was an independent predictor of mortality (OR = 3.623, 95% CI: 1.267-10.358, p = 0.016). Although the rate of AR was higher after TAVI, none of the patients treated with the newest generation devices (10.7%) presented more than a mild degree of AR. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI is feasible and shows comparable results to surgery in terms of early, 1-year mortality, as well as cerebrovascular events in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate-low operative risk. Better transvalvular gradients, yet higher rates of AR were found, however, newer devices presented comparable rate of AR.
BACKGROUND: Recently, the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in inter-mediate-low risk patients has been evaluated in the PARTNER II randomized trial. However, in the last years, this therapy has been employed in this scenario with underreported results, as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: We enrolled 362 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and intermediate-low surgical risk (logEuroSCORE < 20%), treated in our center with TAVI (103 patients) or single SAVR (259 patients) between 2009 and 2014. Patients were matched according to age, gender, logEuroSCORE, and use of bioprosthesis. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 73 ± 10.4 years, and 40.3% were women. LogEuroSCORE and Society Thoracic Surgeons score were 7.0 ± 4.4% and 4.2 ± 2.5%, respectively, with mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52 ± 9%. There were no differences regarding other comorbidities. The length-of-hospitalization was 11 ± 5 days after TAVI vs. 17 ± 9 days after SAVR (p = 0.003). After matched comparison, no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (5.7% after TAVI vs. 2.9% after SAVR, p = 0.687) and 1-year mortality (11.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.381) were found. The combined endpoint of stroke and mortality at 1-year was also similar between both groups (15.7% in TAVI patients vs. 14.4% after SAVR, p = 0.136). Multivariate analysis determined that aortic regurgitation (AR) was an independent predictor of mortality (OR = 3.623, 95% CI: 1.267-10.358, p = 0.016). Although the rate of AR was higher after TAVI, none of the patients treated with the newest generation devices (10.7%) presented more than a mild degree of AR. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI is feasible and shows comparable results to surgery in terms of early, 1-year mortality, as well as cerebrovascular events in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate-low operative risk. Better transvalvular gradients, yet higher rates of AR were found, however, newer devices presented comparable rate of AR.
Authors: Declan Lloyd; Jessica G Y Luc; Ben Elias Indja; Vannessa Leung; Nelson Wang; Kevin Phan Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Ankur Panchal; Andreas Kyvernitakis; Geetha Rayarao; Mark Doyle; Robert W W Biederman Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Gerhard Schymik; Valentin Herzberger; Jens Bergmann; Peter Bramlage; Lars O Conzelmann; Alexander Würth; Armin Luik; Holger Schröfel; Panagiotis Tzamalis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 2.692