Transapical aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement: A subgroup analyses for at-risk populations.

Abstract

If the transfemoral access is not feasible, a transapical access or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are alternatives for patients with aortic valve stenosis. To identify patient groups who benefit from SAVR or transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), we compared in-hospital outcomes of patients in a nationwide dataset. We identified 19,016 isolated SAVR and 6432 TA-TAVR performed in Germany from 2014 to 2016. We adjusted for risk factors using a covariate- and propensity-adjusted analysis. Patients undergoing TA-TAVR were older, had more comorbidities, and accordingly greater estimated operative risk (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation 5.3 vs 17.0, P < .001). However, adjusted risk for in-hospital complications such as stroke, acute kidney injury, relevant bleeding, and prolonged mechanical ventilation >48 hours was lower in patients undergoing TA-TAVR (all P < .001). When we compared in-hospital mortality of all patients undergoing either TA-TAVR or SAVR, neither treatment strategy had a clear advantage (covariate-adjusted odds ratio [caOR], 1.13, P = .251; propensity-adjusted OR [paOR], 1.12, P = .309). Two patient subgroups seem to benefit more from SAVR than TA-TAVR: patients <75 years (caOR, 1.29, P = .237; paOR, 2.12, P = .001) and those with European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation 4-9 (caOR, 1.32, P = .114; paOR, 1.43, P = .041). Female patients had a tendency toward lower risk for in-hospital mortality when undergoing SAVR (caOR, 1.42, P = .030). In patients with chronic renal failure, TA-TAVR was superior (caOR, 0.56, P = .039, P = .040). Patients <75 years and those at low operative risk who underwent SAVR had lower in-hospital mortality than those undergoing TA-TAVR. Patients with chronic renal failure who underwent TA-TAVR had lower in hospital mortality than those that underwent SAVR.