Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) are suitable alternatives to conventional surgery. The aim of this study is to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI and SU-AVR. Methods: Data were analyzed on patients who underwent TAVI and patients who underwent SU-AVR. Two matched cohorts (TAVI vs SU-AVR) were created using propensity scores; all analyses were repeated for transapical TAVI and transfemoral TAVI, separately. Outcomes were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Results: A total of 2177 patients were included in the analysis: 1885 (86.6%) treated with TAVI; 292 (13.4%) treated with SU-AVR. Mortality in unmatched TAVI and SU-AVR patients was 7.1% and 2.1%, respectively, at 30 days, and 12.9% and 4.6%, respectively, at 1 year. No differences were found in 30-day mortality in the 214 matched patient pairs (3.7% vs 2.3%; P = .4), but patients treated with TAVI showed a lower incidence of device success (85.9% vs 98.6%; P < .001) and pacemaker implantation (2.8% vs 9.4%; P = .005), and a higher incidence of any paravalvular leakage (PVL). Conclusions: SU-AVR is associated with better device success and a lower incidence of PVL, compared with TAVI. Nevertheless, patients treated with SU-AVR were more likely to receive a permanent pacemaker. SU-AVR and TAVI provide good results in patients who have severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Given the multiple therapeutic options available, patients may receive the treatment that is most appropriate for their clinical and anatomical characteristics.
The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: A comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation
BESOLA, LAURA;
2016-01-01
Abstract
Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) are suitable alternatives to conventional surgery. The aim of this study is to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI and SU-AVR. Methods: Data were analyzed on patients who underwent TAVI and patients who underwent SU-AVR. Two matched cohorts (TAVI vs SU-AVR) were created using propensity scores; all analyses were repeated for transapical TAVI and transfemoral TAVI, separately. Outcomes were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Results: A total of 2177 patients were included in the analysis: 1885 (86.6%) treated with TAVI; 292 (13.4%) treated with SU-AVR. Mortality in unmatched TAVI and SU-AVR patients was 7.1% and 2.1%, respectively, at 30 days, and 12.9% and 4.6%, respectively, at 1 year. No differences were found in 30-day mortality in the 214 matched patient pairs (3.7% vs 2.3%; P = .4), but patients treated with TAVI showed a lower incidence of device success (85.9% vs 98.6%; P < .001) and pacemaker implantation (2.8% vs 9.4%; P = .005), and a higher incidence of any paravalvular leakage (PVL). Conclusions: SU-AVR is associated with better device success and a lower incidence of PVL, compared with TAVI. Nevertheless, patients treated with SU-AVR were more likely to receive a permanent pacemaker. SU-AVR and TAVI provide good results in patients who have severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Given the multiple therapeutic options available, patients may receive the treatment that is most appropriate for their clinical and anatomical characteristics.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
