A comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in 1,141 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and less than high risk.

OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement but with less than high risk. BACKGROUND: While there is abundant data for high risk patients there is insufficient data for reduced risk. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVI or SAVR between 2007 and 2012 in Karlsruhe were considered. They were assessed by cardiac computed tomography, transoesophageal echocardiogram, and logistic EuroSCORE I (ES) and groups compared using Propensity Score Matching. RESULTS: The mean ES was 10.1±2.8 in the TAVI group (n = 419) and 5.7 ± 3.2 in the SAVR group (n = 722; P < 0.0001). Mean survival probability over 3 years was higher in patients undergoing surgery (P < 0.0001). A total of 432 patients were considered for the matched-pairs analysis based on propensity scores (216 in each group). Major vascular complications (10.6% vs. 0.0%; P < 0.0001), new pacemaker implantation (13.9% vs. 4.6%; P < 0.001) and moderate aortic insufficiency (3.2% vs. 0.5%; P = 0.03) were more frequent in patients undergoing TAVI. Major (20.8% vs. 4.2%; P < 0.0001) and life-threatening (14.5% vs. 2.3%; P < 0.0001) bleeding complications were more frequent in those undergoing surgery. Survival probability over 3 years in the propensity matched cohort was comparable between both groups (P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, single center, real world dataset there was no difference in mortality between patients undergoing TAVI or SAVR during a 3-year follow-up but there was a TAVI related increase in major vascular complications, new pacemaker implantation and aortic insufficiency and a SAVR related increased bleeding risk.

Long-term results of transapical versus transfemoral TAVI in a real world population of 1000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation is generally perceived to be associated with increased morbidity compared with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We aimed to compare access-related complications and survival using propensity score matching. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective, single-center registry of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing transapical and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation between May 2008 and April 2012. Transapical was performed in 413 patients and transfemoral in 587 patients. Patients with transapical access were less often women and less had pulmonary hypertension. Further they had more peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, carotid stenosis, and recurrent surgery and a higher logistic EuroSCORE I (24.3% ± 16.2% for transapical versus 22.2% ± 16.2% for transfemoral; P < 0.01). After building 2 propensity score-matched groups of 354 patients each with either access route (total 708 patients), baseline characteristics were comparable. In this analysis, there was no significant difference in 30 day mortality (5.9% transapical versus 8.5% transfemoral; P = 0.19), the rate of myocardial infarction (2.5% transapical versus 2.0% transfemoral; P = 0.61), stroke (2.0% transapical versus 2.3% transfemoral; P = 0.79), bleeding complications, pacemaker implantation rates, or moderate aortic insufficiency. Stage 1 renal complications were more common in transapical patients (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-4.09), whereas major vascular complications were less common (odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.29). Survival probability over the long term was not statistically different (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.10; log-rank Test, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate that in an experienced multidisciplinary heart team, either access route can be performed with comparable results.