Minimally Invasive Versus Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of options exist for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. The study aim was to compare short-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review of 2,571 patients undergoing SAVR (n = 842), MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy (n = 699) and TAVR (n = 1,030) between 2011 and 2014 was conducted. TAVR patients were further stratified as either transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA). Propensity matching was performed between MIAVR and SAVR (384 pairs), MIAVR and TA-TAVR (115 pairs), and MIAVR and TF-TAVR (247 pairs). RESULTS: Total numbers of AVR increased between 2011 and 2014. When stratified by procedure type, MIAVR and TF-TAVR accounted for most of the growth, while TA-TAVR and SAVR each experienced a decreased volume. Propensity matched comparisons of SAVR, TF-TAVR, and TA-TAVR versus MIAVR revealed no difference in 30-day mortality. TF-TAVR versus MIAVR revealed that MIAVR had a decreased rate of stroke (0.4% versus 3.6%, p = 0.02) and increased atrial fibrillation (AF; 19.4% versus 4%, p <0.01). When compared to SAVR, MIAVR had a lower incidence of AF (19% versus 32.6%, p <0.01). MIAVR exhibited decreased ventilation time (27.2 versus 134 h, p = 0.03) and intensive care unit time (63.7 versus 92.7 h, p = 0.02) compared to TA-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: During recent years, MIAVR and TFTAVR have experienced significant growth in volume with near-comparable short-term outcomes, while SAVR and TA-TAVR volumes have declined. These results underscore the importance of surgeons adopting MIAVR and TF-TAVR techniques in order to offer patients optimal outcomes.

Review of minimal access versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miniAVR) have become alternatives to surgical aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy (SAVR) to treat severe aortic stenosis (AS). Despite increased interest and utilization, few studies have directly compared TAVR and miniAVR. A review of the current literature shows TAVR to be an indispensable tool for inoperable, high-risk, and perhaps intermediate-risk patients with severe AS. However, it is associated with a number of deleterious perioperative outcomes, such as valvular regurgitation and vascular complications. MiniAVR is associated with decreased intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, a lower incidence of blood transfusions, decreased ventilation time, and improved cosmetic results. MiniAVR maintains potential advantages over SAVR, including the implantation of a durable prosthesis and low rates of perioperative myocardial infarction and paravalvular leak. It is associated with longer aortic cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times; however, the use of sutureless valve implants can circumvent this. Studies comparing TAVR and miniAVR demonstrate decreased postoperative mortality, valvular regurgitation, and incidence of stroke in the miniAVR cohorts. Few studies currently exist comparing TAVR and miniAVR, as it is hard to compare the typically low-risk miniAVR versus high-risk TAVR patient populations. It is clear that both strategies will be cornerstones in the modern AVR era, but the situations in which to apply each strategy have not yet been clearly delineated. This highlights the need for surgeons to adopt these minimally invasive techniques. We believe there is a compelling role for miniAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients, but due to the paucity of data, neither TAVR nor miniAVR should be discounted before a randomized, risk-stratified trial is performed. More studies are needed to compare TAVR and miniAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients.