A Comparative Study of TAVR versus SAVR in Moderate and High-Risk Surgical Patients: Hospital Outcome and Midterm Results

Abstract

Background: Although the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently become an attractive strategy in prohibitive surgical high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), the most appropriate treatment option in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk profile— whether conventional surgery (SAVR) or TAVR—has been widely debated. Methods: One hundred and forty-three consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk were prospectively enrolled and selected to undergo SAVR (Group 1 [G1], n = 63) or TAVR (Group 2 [G2], n = 80) following a multidisciplinary evaluation including frailty, anatomy, and degree of atherosclerotic disease of the aorta/peripheral vessels. The mean logistic EuroSCORE (G1 = 20.11 ± 7.144 versus G2 = 23.33 ± 8.97; P = .022), STS score (G1 = 5.722 ± 1.309 versus G2 = 5.958 ± 1.689; P = .347), and preoperative demographics such as sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF),  body mass index (BMI), peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, renal impairment and syncope were similar. Of note, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was more frequent in TAVR patients (G2 [46.2%] versus G1 [19.0%]; P = .001), whereas pulmonary hypertension was more frequent in SAVR group (G1 [47.6%] versus G2 [17.5%]; P = .000). The SAVR was performed with either a mechanical or tissue valve; meanwhile, TAVR was performed with either Core valve prosthesis or Edwards-Sapiens XT valve. Results: SAVR group showed higher incidence of some postoperative complications compared to TAVR, namely, postoperative bleeding (4.8% versus 0.0%; P = .048), tamponade (4.8% versus 0.0%; P = .048) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (34.9% versus 10.0%; P = .000), whereas TAVR group had a higher incidence of other sets of postoperative complications, namely, left bundle branch block (58.8% versus 4.8%; P = .000), need for permanent pacemaker implantation (25.0% versus 1.6%; P = .000) and peripheral vascular complications (15.0% versus 0.0%; P = .001). On the contrary, when the two groups were compared they did not show any significant difference regarding anemia requiring more than two units of blood transfusion, postoperative renal failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospital mortality. P = .534, .873, .258, .373 and .072 respectively. Hospital mortality was similar among the two groups (G1 = 0% versus G2 = 5%; P = .072). At the 24-month follow-up, overall mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were comparable between the two groups but prosthetic regurgitation was better in SAVR group (G2 = 8 patients [10.0%] versus G1 = 1 patient [1.6%] in SAVR group; P = .040). Conclusion: In this study, we could not detect an advantage in survival when SAVR or TAVR were utilized in intermediate to high surgical risk patients needing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.