Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: A propensity score analysis in patients at high surgical risk

Objectives

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has recently been advocated to decrease perioperative risk in high-risk patients. In this propensity-score analysis we compared outcomes after TAVI to those after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

From June 2009 through June 2010, 82 consecutive patients underwent TAVI via a transapical (n = 60) or transfemoral (n = 22) approach using the Edwards Sapien prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Mean patient age was 81.9 ± 5.2 years, 64.6% were women. Logistic EuroSCORE was 23.6% ± 1.4% and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 8.7% ± 1.3%. A group of 82 patients after surgical AVR was retrieved from our database, yielding a control group that was matched to the cases with respect to baseline demographics and typical risk factors.

Results

Overall mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI and AVR groups at 30 days (7.3% vs 8.6%), 90 days (13.6% vs 11.1%), or 180 days (17.8% vs 16.9%; P = .889). Conversion to surgery was necessary in 2 (2.4%) TAVI cases. Perioperative stroke occurred in 2 (2.4%) cases per group. Pacemakers were implanted for new-onset heart block in 3.7% and 2.4% in the TAVI and AVR groups, respectively (P = 1.0). TAVI resulted in shorter operative times (P < .001), shorter ventilation times (P < .001), and shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit (P = .008). Duration of hospital stay, however, was not significantly different (P = .11).

Conclusions

In our experience, mortality rates are similar after both types of procedure. Patients receiving TAVI benefit from faster postoperative recovery. Until more clinical data become available, the optimal procedure has to be determined for each patient according to individual risk factors.