open access

Vol 23, No 5 (2016)
INTERVENTION/VALVULAR HEART DISEASE - Original articles
Published online: 2016-07-20
Get Citation

Propensity score matched comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus conventional surgery in intermediate and low risk aortic stenosis patients: A hint of real-world

Javier Castrodeza, Ignacio J. Amat-Santos, Myriam Blanco, Carlos Cortes, Javier Tobar, Irene Martin-Morquecho, Javier López, Salvatore Di Stefano, Paol Rojas, Luis H Varela-Falcon, Itziar Gomez, Jose A. San Roman
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0051
·
Pubmed: 27439368
·
Cardiol J 2016;23(5):541-551.

open access

Vol 23, No 5 (2016)
INTERVENTION/VALVULAR HEART DISEASE - Original articles
Published online: 2016-07-20

Abstract

Background: Recently, the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in inter­mediate-low risk patients has been evaluated in the PARTNER II randomized trial. However, in the last years, this therapy has been employed in this scenario with underreported results, as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods: We enrolled 362 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and intermediate-low surgical risk (logEuroSCORE < 20%), treated in our center with TAVI (103 patients) or single SAVR (259 patients) between 2009 and 2014. Patients were matched according to age, gender, logEuroSCORE, and use of bioprosthesis.

Results: Mean age of the patients was 73 ± 10.4 years, and 40.3% were women. LogEuroSCORE and Society Thoracic Surgeons score were 7.0 ± 4.4% and 4.2 ± 2.5%, respectively, with mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52 ± 9%. There were no differences regarding other comorbidities. The length-of-hospitalization was 11 ± 5 days after TAVI vs. 17 ± 9 days after SAVR (p = 0.003). After matched comparison, no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (5.7% after TAVI vs. 2.9% after SAVR, p = 0.687) and 1-year mortality (11.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.381) were found. The combined endpoint of stroke and mortality at 1-year was also similar between both groups (15.7% in TAVI patients vs. 14.4% after SAVR, p = 0.136). Multivariate analysis determined that aortic regurgitation (AR) was an independent predictor of mortality (OR = 3.623, 95% CI: 1.267–10.358, p = 0.016). Although the rate of AR was higher after TAVI, none of the patients treated with the newest generation devices (10.7%) presented more than a mild degree of AR.

Conclusions: TAVI is feasible and shows comparable results to surgery in terms of early, 1-year mortality, as well as cerebrovascular events in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate-low operative risk. Better transvalvular gradients, yet higher rates of AR were found, however, newer devices presented comparable rate of AR.

Abstract

Background: Recently, the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in inter­mediate-low risk patients has been evaluated in the PARTNER II randomized trial. However, in the last years, this therapy has been employed in this scenario with underreported results, as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods: We enrolled 362 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and intermediate-low surgical risk (logEuroSCORE < 20%), treated in our center with TAVI (103 patients) or single SAVR (259 patients) between 2009 and 2014. Patients were matched according to age, gender, logEuroSCORE, and use of bioprosthesis.

Results: Mean age of the patients was 73 ± 10.4 years, and 40.3% were women. LogEuroSCORE and Society Thoracic Surgeons score were 7.0 ± 4.4% and 4.2 ± 2.5%, respectively, with mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52 ± 9%. There were no differences regarding other comorbidities. The length-of-hospitalization was 11 ± 5 days after TAVI vs. 17 ± 9 days after SAVR (p = 0.003). After matched comparison, no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (5.7% after TAVI vs. 2.9% after SAVR, p = 0.687) and 1-year mortality (11.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.381) were found. The combined endpoint of stroke and mortality at 1-year was also similar between both groups (15.7% in TAVI patients vs. 14.4% after SAVR, p = 0.136). Multivariate analysis determined that aortic regurgitation (AR) was an independent predictor of mortality (OR = 3.623, 95% CI: 1.267–10.358, p = 0.016). Although the rate of AR was higher after TAVI, none of the patients treated with the newest generation devices (10.7%) presented more than a mild degree of AR.

Conclusions: TAVI is feasible and shows comparable results to surgery in terms of early, 1-year mortality, as well as cerebrovascular events in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate-low operative risk. Better transvalvular gradients, yet higher rates of AR were found, however, newer devices presented comparable rate of AR.

Get Citation

Keywords

cardiac risk, aortic stenosis, TAVI, SAVR, propensity score

About this article
Title

Propensity score matched comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus conventional surgery in intermediate and low risk aortic stenosis patients: A hint of real-world

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Vol 23, No 5 (2016)

Pages

541-551

Published online

2016-07-20

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2016.0051

Pubmed

27439368

Bibliographic record

Cardiol J 2016;23(5):541-551.

Keywords

cardiac risk
aortic stenosis
TAVI
SAVR
propensity score

Authors

Javier Castrodeza
Ignacio J. Amat-Santos
Myriam Blanco
Carlos Cortes
Javier Tobar
Irene Martin-Morquecho
Javier López
Salvatore Di Stefano
Paol Rojas
Luis H Varela-Falcon
Itziar Gomez
Jose A. San Roman

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl