Transcatheter versus Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young High-Risk Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Younger patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are a particularly challenging collective with regard to the choice of intervention. High-risk patients younger than 75 years of age are often eligible for both the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR). Data on the outcomes of both interventions in this set of patients are scarce.Methods
One hundred and forty-four propensity score-matched patients aged 75 years or less who underwent TAVR or iSAVR at the Hietzing Heart Center in Vienna, Austria, were included in the study. The mean age was 68.9 years (TAVR 68.7 vs. SAVR 67.6 years; p = 0.190) and the average EuroSCORE II was 5.4% (TAVR 4.3 [3.2%] vs. iSAVR 6.4 (4.3%); p = 0.194).Results
Postprocedural adverse event data showed higher rates of newly acquired atrial fibrillation (6.9% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.049), prolonged ventilation (2.8% vs. 25.0%; p < 0.001) and multi-organ failure (0% vs. 6.9%) in the surgical cohort. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality was significantly higher for iSAVR (1.4% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.012; 12.5% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.009, respectively). The long-term survival (median follow-up 5.0 years (2.2-14.1 years)) of patients treated with the surgical approach was superior to that of patients undergoing TAVR (p < 0.001).Conclusion
Although the survival analysis revealed a higher in-hospital and 30-day survival rate for high-risk patients aged ≤75 years who underwent TAVR, iSAVR was associated with a significantly higher long-term survival rate.
SUBMITTER: Mach M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8346998 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.
| S-EPMC5826727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative for surgically inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Advanced kidney disease may significantly affect outcomes in patients treated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).HypothesisTAVR is associated with better in-hospital outcomes compared with SAVR in patients with advanced kidney disease.MethodsWe identified our sample from the National Inpatient Sample between 2012 and 2014, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We included patients with chronic kidney disease stages IV and V and end-stage renal disease as advanced kidney disease patients. We excluded patients with acute kidney injury on admission and patients on dialysis.ResultsAfter propensity matching, 2485 patients were included in each group. The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality (12.9% vs 6.2%; P < 0.01) was higher with SAVR as compared with TAVR. Patients who underwent SAVR reported higher acute kidney injury (50.3% vs 33%; P < 0.01) and dialysis requirements (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < 0.01). Other secondary outcomes including blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, iatrogenic cardiac complications, pericardial complications, perioperative stroke, perioperative infections, and postoperative shock were more common with SAVR. With SAVR, the length of hospitalization and hospitalization costs were significantly higher; however, permanent pacemaker placement was more common with TAVR compared with SAVR.ConclusionsIn patients with advanced kidney disease, SAVR was associated with higher mortality and higher periprocedural complications, as compared with TAVR. Thus, benefits of TAVR could be extended in patients with advanced kidney disease who cannot undergo surgery.
| S-EPMC6490436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMorbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate.AimsOur aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR.MethodsA multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs.ResultsAfter matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737).ConclusionsSAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.
| S-EPMC10241265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to analyze in-hospital and early-to-interim outcomes of pure aortic regurgitation (AR) using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundFew studies have discussed and compared the safety and short-term prognosis of TAVR and SAVR in pure AR patients. As such, we looked to the National Readmissions Database (NRD) for records between 2016 and 2019 in order to identify patients diagnosed with pure AR who underwent SAVR or TAVR. We used the propensity score matching to minimize disparities between two groups. We included 23,276 pure AR patients: 1983 (8.5%) who underwent TAVR and 21,293 (91.5%) who underwent SAVR. We found 1820 matched pairs using propensity score matching. In the matching cohort, TAVR was associated with a low risk of in-hospital mortality. Although TAVR had lower incidences of 30-day all-cause readmission (hazard ratio (HR):0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.87; P < 0.01) and 6-month all-cause readmission (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.97; P = 0.03), while TAVR had high incidences of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation incidence (HR: 3.54, 95% CI: 1.62-7.74; P < 0.01) and 6-month permanent pacemaker implantation incidence (HR: 4.12, 95% CI: 1.17-14.4; P = 0.03).In conclusion, TAVR and SAVR had similar risks of hospital death and lower rates of 30-day and 6-month all-cause and cardiovascular readmission. But TAVR had a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation than SAVR in AR patients, suggesting that TAVR can be performed safely in pure AR patients.
| S-EPMC10248226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P=0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P=0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P=0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P=0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P=0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.
| S-EPMC8475036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe investigated the sex-related difference in characteristics and 2-year outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by propensity-score matching (PSM).MethodsData from two prospective registries, INDURE and IMPACT, were merged, resulting in a total of 933 patients: 735 males and 253 females undergoing first-time SAVR. PSM was performed to assess the impact of sex on the SAVR outcomes, yielding 433 males and 243 females with comparable baseline characteristics.ResultsFemales had a lower body mass index (BMI; median 27.1 vs 28.0 kg/m2; p = 0.008), fewer bicuspid valves (52% vs 59%; p = 0.036), higher EuroSCORE II (mean 2.3 vs 1.8%; p < 0.001) and STS score (mean 1.6 vs 0.9%; p < 0.001), were more often in NYHA class III/IV (47% vs 30%; p < 0.001) and angina CCS III/IV (8.2% vs 4.4%; p < 0.001), but had a lower rate of myocardial infarction (1.9% vs 5.2%; p = 0.028) compared to males. These differences vanished after PSM, except for EuroSCORE II and STS scores, which were still significantly higher in females. Furthermore, females required smaller valves (median diameter 23.0 vs 25.0 mm, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the length of hospital stay (median 8 days) or ICU stay (median 24 vs 25 hours) between both sexes. At two years, post-SAVR outcomes were comparable between males and females, even after PSM.ConclusionsDespite females presenting with a significantly higher surgical risk profile, 2-year outcomes following SAVR were comparable between males and females.
| S-EPMC11341123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients with thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysms (AA). Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we explored the safety of TAVR among patients with a diagnosis of AA.MethodsWe queried the National Inpatient Sample database (2012-2017) for hospitalized patients undergoing TAVR, using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for endovascular TAVR. Reports show that > 95% of endovascular TAVR in the US is via transfemoral access, so our population are mostly patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Using propensity score matching, we compared the trends and outcomes of TAVR procedures among patients with versus without AA.ResultsFrom a total sample of 29,517 individuals who had TAVR procedures between January 2012 and December 2017, 910 had a diagnosis of AA. In 774 matched-pair analysis, all-cause in-hospital mortality was similar in patients with and without AA OR 0.63 [(95% CI 0.28-1.43), p = 0.20]. The median length of stay was higher in patients with AA: 4 days (IQR 2.0-7.0) versus 3 days (IQR 2.0-6.0) p = 0.01. Risk of AKI [OR 1.01 (0.73-1.39), p = 0.87], heart block requiring pacemaker placement [OR 1.17 (0.81-1.69), p = 0.40], aortic dissection [OR 2.38 (0.41-13.75), p = 0.25], acute limb ischemia [OR 0.46 (0.18-1.16), p = 0.09], vascular complications [OR 0.80 (0.34-1.89), p = 0.53], post-op bleeding [OR 1.12 (0.81-1.57), p = 0.42], blood transfusion [OR 1.20 (0.84-1.70), p = 0.26], and stroke [OR 0.58 (0.24-1.39), p = 0.25] were similar in those with and without AA.ConclusionsData from a large nationwide database demonstrated that patients with AA undergoing TAVR are associated with similar in-hospital outcomes compared with patients without AA.
| S-EPMC8933596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate the impact of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) on clinical outcomes in comparison with the gold standard.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who underwent isolated AVR at the University Hospital Center Zagreb from 2010 to 2020. Patients undergoing mini-AVR were compared with patients undergoing conventional AVR (fs-AVR). The primary outcome measure was blood product consumption. Propensity score matching was used to create a balanced covariate distribution across treatment groups. Additionally, we compared the contemporary outcomes with a historical control.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 1088 patients. In the unmatched cohorts, mini-AVR patients were younger (65±12 vs 68±10 years, P<0.001) and had lower risk profiles (EuroSCORE2 2.8±2.0 vs 3.5±3.1, P=0.003). After matching, mini-AVR patients required less blood transfusion than fs-AVR patients (270 [0-790] vs 510 [0-970] mL, P=0.029). The incidences of stroke, dialysis, new AV block, and mortality were comparable. Cross-clamp times were longer in the mini-AVR group (71 [60-87] vs 66 [53-83] minutes, P=0.013). Outcomes were improved in the contemporary mini-AVR era compared with our early mini-AVR experience across multiple metrics. Blood product consumption was reduced in the latter tercile of experience (0 [0-520] vs 500 [0-1018] mL, P<0.001), and the operation was performed more expeditiously (cross-clamp times: 63 [54,80] vs 74 [62,88] minutes, P<0.001) in comparison with earlier periods.ConclusionsWe showed that mini-AVR was associated with less blood product requirement than conventional surgery. Our data supports wider adoption of minimally invasive techniques in dedicated centers of excellence.
| S-EPMC9648077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a standard treatment indicated for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of pacemaker dependency after permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and the risk of mortality at a tertiary center in Korea.In this retrospective study conducted at a single tertiary center, clinical outcomes related to pacemaker dependency were evaluated for patients implanted with pacemakers after TAVR from January 2012 to November 2018 and post-SAVR from January 2005 to May 2015. Investigators reviewed patients' electrocardiograms and baseline rhythms as well as conduction abnormalities. Pacemaker dependency was defined as a ventricular pacing rate > 90% with an intrinsic rate of <40 bpm during interrogation.Of 511 patients who underwent TAVR for severe AS, 37(7.3%) underwent PPI after a median duration of 6 (3-7) days, whereas pacemakers were implanted after a median interval of 13 (8-28) days post-SAVR in 10 of 663 patients (P < .001). Pacemaker dependency was observed in 36 (97.3%) patients during 7 days immediately post-TAVR and in 25 (64.9%) patients between 8 and 180 days post-TAVR. Pacemaker dependency occurred after 180 days in 17 (50%) patients with TAVR and in 4 (44.4%) patients with SAVR. Twelve (41.4%) patients were pacemaker-dependent after 365 days post-TAVR.Pacemaker dependency did not differ at 6 months after TAVR vs SAVR. In patients undergoing post-TAVR PPI, 58.6% were not pacemaker-dependent at 1 year after the TAVR procedure.
| S-EPMC8183801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Ultrasound (US) guidance provides the unique opportunity to control the puncture zone of the artery during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may decrease major vascular complications (VC) and life-threatening or major bleeding complications. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of US guidance using a propensity score-matched comparison. Methods and Results US guidance was implemented as the default approach for all transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement cases in our institution in June 2013. We defined 3 groups of consecutive patients according to the method of puncture (fluoroscopic/US guidance) and the use of a transcatheter heart valve. Patients in the US-guided second-generation group (Sapien XT [Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA], Corevalve [Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland]) were successfully 1:1 matched with patients in the fluoroscope-guided second-generation group (n=95) with propensity score matching. In a second analysis we described the consecutive patients of the US-guided third-generation group (Evolut-R [Medtronic], Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences], n=308). All vascular and bleeding complications were reduced in the US-guided second-generation group compared with the fluoroscope-guided second-generation group: VC (16.8% versus 6.3%; P=0.023); life-threatening or major bleeding (22.1% versus 6%; P=0.004); and VC related to vascular access (12.6% versus 4.2%; P=0.052). In the US-guided third-generation group the rates of major VC and life-threatening or major bleeding were 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6% to 5.9%) and 3.6% (95% CI, 1.8% to 6.3%). In the overall population (n=546), life-threatening or major bleeding was associated with a 1.7-fold increased mortality risk (P=0.02). Conclusions We demonstrated that US guidance effectively reduced VC and bleeding complications for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and should be considered the standard puncture method. Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02628509.
| S-EPMC7335526 | biostudies-literature