Virtanen MPO, Eskola M, Jalava MP, et al. Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(6):e195742. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5742
Comparison of outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs surgical aortic valve replacement among patients with aortic stenosis at low operative risk
|Author:||Virtanen, Marko P. O.1; Eskola, Markku1; Jalava, Maina P.2;|
1Heart Hospital, Tampere University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland
2Heart Center, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
3Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
4Heart Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
5Department of Internal Medicine, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
6Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
7National Centre of Global Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
8Department of Surgery, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.9 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2020042422334
American Medical Association,
|Publish Date:|| 2020-04-24
Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.
Objective: To compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.
Exposures: Primary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.
Results: Overall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.
Conclusions and Relevance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.
JAMA network open
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
Dr Airaksinen reported receiving grants from Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research outside the submitted work. Dr Savontaus reported receiving personal fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific during the conduct of the study. Dr Juvonen reported receiving grants from the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular research outside the submitted work. Dr Laine reported receiving personal fees from Boston Scientific during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Virtanen MPO et al. JAMA Network Open.