RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for elderly patients across the operative risk spectrum. In the Netherlands, TAVI is reimbursed only for patients with a high operative risk. Despite this, one fifth of TAVI patients are <â¯75 years of age. We aim to compare patient characteristics and outcomes of TAVI and SAVR patients <â¯75 years. METHODS: This study included all patients <â¯75 years without active endocarditis undergoing TAVI or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis, mixed aortic valve disease or degenerated aortic bioprosthesis between 2015 and 2020 at the Erasmus University Medical Centre. Dutch authority guidelines were used to classify operative risk. RESULTS: TAVI was performed in 292 patients, SAVR in 386 patients. Based on the Dutch risk algorithm, 59.6% of TAVI patients and 19.4% of SAVR patients were at high operative risk. There was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality between TAVI and SAVR (2.4% vs 0.8%, pâ¯= 0.083). One-year and 5year mortality was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (1-year: 12.5% vs 4.3%, pâ¯< 0.001; 5year: 36.8% vs 12.0%, pâ¯< 0.001). Within risk categories we found no difference between treatment strategies. Independent predictors of mortality were cardiovascular comorbidities (left ventricular ejection fraction <â¯30%, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension) and the presence of malignancies, liver cirrhosis or immunomodulatory drug use. CONCLUSION: At the Erasmus University Medical Centre, in patients <â¯75 years, TAVI is selected for higher-risk phenotypes and overall has higher long-term mortality than SAVR. We found no evidence for worse outcome within risk categories.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In patients with low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS) and low transvalvular flow, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is recommended to determine AS severity, whereas the degree of aortic valve calcification (AVC) supposedly correlates with AS severity according to current European and American guidelines. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between AVC and AS severity as determined using echocardiography and DSE in patients with aortic valve area <1 cm2 and peak aortic valve velocity <4.0 m/s. METHODS: All patients underwent DSE to determine AS severity and multislice computed tomography to quantify AVC. Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis was used to assess the diagnostic value of AVC for AS severity grading as determined using echocardiography and DSE in men and women. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were included. Median age was 78 years (25th-75th percentile: 71-84 years) and 25% were women. Left ventricular ejection fraction was reduced (<50%) in 197 (92.1%) patients. Severe AS was diagnosed in 106 patients (49.5%). Moderate AS was diagnosed in 108 patients (50.5%; in 77 based on resting transthoracic echocardiography, in 31 confirmed using DSE). AVC score was high (≥2,000 for men or ≥1,200 for women) in 47 (44.3%) patients with severe AS and in 47 (43.5%) patients with moderate AS. AVC sensitivity was 44.3%, specificity was 56.5%, and positive and negative predictive values for severe AS were 50.0% and 50.8%, respectively. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve was 0.508 for men and 0.524 for women. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-slice computed tomography-derived AVC scores showed poor discrimination between grades of AS severity using DSE and cannot replace DSE in the diagnostic work-up of low-gradient severe AS.