Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: what is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Nov;146(5):1065-70; discussion 1070-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.06.047. Epub 2013 Sep 8.

Abstract

Objective: Although surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice for patients with aortic valve stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) have shown good results. The aim of our multicenter, propensity-matched study was to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of surgical SAVR, transapical TAVR (TA-TAVR), and SU-AVR.

Methods: We analyzed data from 566 TA-TAVR, 349 SAVR, and 38 SU-AVR patients treated from January 2009 to March 2012. We used a propensity-matching strategy to compare on-pump (SAVR, SU-AVR) and off-pump (TA-TAVR) surgical techniques. The outcomes were analyzed using multivariate weighted logistic regression or multinomial logistic analysis.

Results: In the matched cohorts, the 30-day overall mortality was significantly lower after SAVR than TA-TAVR (7% vs 1.8%, P = .026), with no differences in mortality between SU-AVR and TA-TAVR. Multivariate analysis showed SU-AVR to have a protective effect, although not statistically significant, against aortic regurgitation, pacemaker implantation, and renal replacement therapy compared with TA-TAVR. Compared with TA-TAVR, SAVR demonstrated significant protection against aortic regurgitation (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001) and a trend toward protection against death, pacemaker implantation, and myocardial infarction. The mean transaortic gradient was 10.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg, 11 ± 3.4 mm Hg, and 16.5 ± 5.8 mm Hg in the TA-TAVR, SU-AVR, and SAVR patients, respectively.

Conclusions: SAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality than TA-TAVR. SAVR was also associated with a lower risk of postoperative aortic regurgitation compared with TA-TAVR. We did not find other significant differences in outcomes among matched patients treated with SAVR, SU-AVR, and TA-TAVR.

Keywords: 35.2; AR; OHS; PARTNER; Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve; SAVR; SSAVS; SU-AVR; TA-TAVR; TAVR; aortic regurgitation; open-heart surgery; severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis; surgical aortic valve replacement; sutureless aortic valve replacement; transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement; transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Aortic Valve Stenosis / diagnosis
  • Aortic Valve Stenosis / mortality
  • Aortic Valve Stenosis / surgery*
  • Cardiac Catheterization* / adverse effects
  • Cardiac Catheterization* / instrumentation
  • Cardiac Catheterization* / mortality
  • Female
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effects
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / instrumentation
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / methods*
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / mortality
  • Humans
  • Italy
  • Logistic Models
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Multivariate Analysis
  • Odds Ratio
  • Patient Selection
  • Postoperative Complications / etiology
  • Postoperative Complications / therapy
  • Propensity Score
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Factors
  • Suture Techniques
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome