Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: A propensity score-matched analysis

29Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine the differences in outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in low-risk patients. METHODS: All patients with a logistic EuroSCORE II <4% who underwent transfemoral TAVI between 2008 and 2016 (n = 955) or SAVR between 2009 and 2014 (n = 886) at our centre were included. One hundred and nine patients per group were available for propensity score matching. RESULTS: Mortality during the 30-day follow-up showed no differences (SAVR vs TAVI: 1.1% vs 1.8%, P = 1.0) but the rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (0.0 vs 14.8%, P < 0.001) and paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate (0.0 vs 7.0%, P = 0.017) were higher in TAVI patients. No difference was found regarding postoperative effective orifice area and transvalvular pressure gradients. Although, the 1-year survival was similar between both groups; 3- and 5-year survival was significantly inferior in the TAVI patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI yielded similar short-term outcomes compared with SAVR despite higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate, but inferior long-term survival. Poorer long-term outcomes of the TAVI patient cohort were attributable to a more comorbid TAVI population. This emphasizes the need for long-term results from randomized controlled trials before TAVI can be broadly expanded to younger low-risk patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schaefer, A., Schofer, N., Goßling, A., Seiffert, M., Schirmer, J., Deuschl, F., … Westermann, D. (2019). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: A propensity score-matched analysis. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 56(6), 1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz245

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free