Transcatheter (TAVR) versus Surgical (AVR) Aortic Valve Replacement - Propensity Score Matched Comparison of 3,751 Patients
Jochen Börgermann1, Eric Emmel1, Nobuyuki Furukawa1, Smita Scholtz1, Stephan Ensminger1, Buntaro Fujita1, Werner Scholtz1, Marios Vlachojannis1, Tobias Becker1, Dieter Horstkotte1, Oliver Kuss2, Jan-Fritz Gummert1.
1Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW Ruhr University of Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany, 23Inst. for Biometry and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Institute for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, Düsseldorf, Germany.
OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established method in high-risk patients. Two aspects of this procedure are currently under discussion: 1.) Do the data acquired from randomized studies and registers justify expansion of the procedure to include younger and healthier patients? 2.) Is the transfemoral approach superior to the transapical approach with regard to mortality and periprocedural complications? Against this background we examined the mortality and morbidity of all patients who received an isolated conventional, transapical or transfemoral aortic valve replacement in accordance with the criteria of the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2.
METHODS: A prospective register was taken from a single center recording all conventional (CONV, n=2,881), transapical (TAVR-TA, n=363) and transfemoral (TAVR-TF, n=570) aortic valve implantations during the period from 07/2009 to 10/2014. Using propensity score (PS) matching, first CONV and TAVRall (TA+TF) and then TAVR-TA and TAVR-TF were paired on the basis of 21 risk variables, creating comparable groups.
RESULTS: 393 pairs CONV vs. TAVRall within a moderate risk could be created (EuroSCORE 18.7 vs. 18.5; STS 5.0 vs. 5.4). Comparison revealed no difference for 30d mortality (4.6% CONV vs. 5.1% TAVRall, p=0.74), stroke (2.8% vs. 2.0%, p=0.48) or myocardial infarction (0.0 vs. 0.3%, p=0.50). Bleeding complications were significantly more frequent in the CONV, SM implantations and vascular complications in the TAVRall group. In the PS-adjusted comparison TAVR-TA vs. TAVR-TF (289 pairs; EuroSCORE 25.1 vs. 22.1; STS 6.8 vs. 6.7) there was also no difference in the hard endpoints (30d mortality 4.9% TA vs. 4.2% TF, p=0.70; stroke 3.1% vs. 2.8%, p=0.81; myocardial infarction 0.4% vs. 0.4%, p=1.00). Here bleeding complications were significantly more frequent in the TA group, SM implantations and vascular complications in the TF group. Subgroup analysis showed an advantage of the TAVR procedure in octogenarians.
CONCLUSIONS: These data show that 1.) conventional aortic valve replacement and TAVR are comparable in the moderate risk group, and 2.) the two approaches, transapical and transfemoral, produce comparable results.
Back to 2016 Annual Meeting Cardiac Track