Journal
CIRCULATION
Volume 138, Issue 23, Pages 2611-2623Publisher
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033048
Keywords
aortic valve; registries; risk factors; transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Funding
- German Cardiac Society
- German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
- German Heart Foundation
- Edwards Lifesciences Germany GmbH
- Medtronic GmbH
- Sorin Group - LivaNova
- Abbott GmbH Co. KG
- Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, real-world data comparing indications and clinical outcomes of patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated TAVR with those undergoing SAVR are scarce. Methods: We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) who underwent isolated TAVR or conventional SAVR within the prospective, all-comers German Aortic Valve Registry. Results: A total of 7613 patients at intermediate surgical risk underwent isolated TAVR (n=6469) or SAVR (n=1144) at 92 sites in Germany between 2012 and 2014. Patients treated by TAVR were significantly older (82.55.0 versus 76.6 +/- 6.7 years, P<0.001) and had higher risk scores (logistic EuroSCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation]: 21.2 +/- 12.3% versus 14.2 +/- 9.5%, P<0.001; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 5.6 +/- 1.1 versus 5.2 +/- 1.0, P<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that advanced age, coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association class III/IV, pulmonary hypertension, prior cardiac decompensation, elective procedure, arterial occlusive disease, no diabetes mellitus, and a smaller aortic valve area were associated with performing TAVR instead of SAVR (all P<0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were equal for TAVR and SAVR (3.6% versus 3.6%, P=0.976), whereas unadjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients after TAVR (17.5% versus 10.8%, P<0.001). After propensity score matching, the difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR was no longer significant (17.1% versus 15.7%, P=0.59). Conclusions: Patients at intermediate risk undergoing TAVR differ significantly from those treated with SAVR with regard to age and baseline characteristics. Isolated TAVR and SAVR were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.6%. In the propensity score analysis, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available