Abstract
An increasing number of options exist for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. The study aim was to compare short-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
A multi-institutional retrospective review of 2,571 patients undergoing SAVR (n = 842), MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy (n = 699) and TAVR (n = 1,030) between 2011 and 2014 was conducted. TAVR patients were further stratified as either transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA). Propensity matching was performed between MIAVR and SAVR (384 pairs), MIAVR and TA-TAVR (115 pairs), and MIAVR and TF-TAVR (247 pairs).
Total numbers of AVR increased between 2011 and 2014. When stratified by procedure type, MIAVR and TF-TAVR accounted for most of the growth, while TA-TAVR and SAVR each experienced a decreased volume. Propensity matched comparisons of SAVR, TF-TAVR, and TA-TAVR versus MIAVR revealed no difference in 30-day mortality. TF-TAVR versus MIAVR revealed that MIAVR had a decreased rate of stroke (0.4% versus 3.6%, p = 0.02) and increased atrial fibrillation (AF; 19.4% versus 4%, p <0.01). When compared to SAVR, MIAVR had a lower incidence of AF (19% versus 32.6%, p <0.01). MIAVR exhibited decreased ventilation time (27.2 versus 134 h, p = 0.03) and intensive care unit time (63.7 versus 92.7 h, p = 0.02) compared to TA-TAVR.
During recent years, MIAVR and TFTAVR have experienced significant growth in volume with near-comparable short-term outcomes, while SAVR and TA-TAVR volumes have declined. These results underscore the importance of surgeons adopting MIAVR and TF-TAVR techniques in order to offer patients optimal outcomes.