Thoetchai Bee Peeraphatdit1, Vuyisile T Nkomo2, Niyada Naksuk2,3, Douglas A Simonetto1, Nimish Thakral1, Grant M Spears4, William S Harmsen4, Vijay H Shah1, Kevin L Greason5, Patrick S Kamath1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN. 3. Division of Cardiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 4. Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatologists often determine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is preferred for patients with cirrhosis and severe aortic stenosis. The goal of this cohort study is to compare outcomes following TAVR and SAVR in patients with cirrhosis to inform the preferred intervention. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Prospectively collected data on 105 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n = 55) or SAVR (n = 50) between 2008 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Two control groups were included: 2,680 patients without cirrhosis undergoing TAVR and SAVR and 17 patients with cirrhosis who received medical therapy alone. Among the 105 patients with cirrhosis, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.8% (1.5, 6.9), and the median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 11.6 (9.4, 14.0). The TAVR group had similar in-hospital (1.8% vs. 2.0%) and 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 4.2%) as the SAVR group. During the median follow-up of 3.8 years (95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.9), there were 63 (60%) deaths. MELD score (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.21; P = 0.002) was an independent predictor of long-term survival. In the subgroup of patients with MELD score <12, the TAVR group had reduced survival compared with the SAVR group (median survival of 2.8 vs. 4.4 years; P = 0.047). However, in those with MELD score ≥12, survival after TAVR, SAVR, and medical therapy was similar (1.3 vs. 2.1 vs. 1.6 years, respectively; P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: In select patients with cirrhosis, both TAVR and SAVR have acceptable and comparable short-term outcomes. MELD score, but not Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, independently predicts long-term survival after TAVR and SAVR. For patients with MELD score <12, SAVR is a preferred procedure; however, neither procedure appears superior to medical therapy in patients with MELD score ≥12.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatologists often determine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is preferred for patients with cirrhosis and severe aortic stenosis. The goal of this cohort study is to compare outcomes following TAVR and SAVR in patients with cirrhosis to inform the preferred intervention. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Prospectively collected data on 105 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n = 55) or SAVR (n = 50) between 2008 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Two control groups were included: 2,680 patients without cirrhosis undergoing TAVR and SAVR and 17 patients with cirrhosis who received medical therapy alone. Among the 105 patients with cirrhosis, the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 3.8% (1.5, 6.9), and the median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 11.6 (9.4, 14.0). The TAVR group had similar in-hospital (1.8% vs. 2.0%) and 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 4.2%) as the SAVR group. During the median follow-up of 3.8 years (95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.9), there were 63 (60%) deaths. MELD score (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.21; P = 0.002) was an independent predictor of long-term survival. In the subgroup of patients with MELD score <12, the TAVR group had reduced survival compared with the SAVR group (median survival of 2.8 vs. 4.4 years; P = 0.047). However, in those with MELD score ≥12, survival after TAVR, SAVR, and medical therapy was similar (1.3 vs. 2.1 vs. 1.6 years, respectively; P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: In select patients with cirrhosis, both TAVR and SAVR have acceptable and comparable short-term outcomes. MELD score, but not Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, independently predicts long-term survival after TAVR and SAVR. For patients with MELD score <12, SAVR is a preferred procedure; however, neither procedure appears superior to medical therapy in patients with MELD score ≥12.