Abstract 17539: Conventional vs. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - Propensity Score Adjusted Comparison of 3,751 Unselected Patients

Abstract

Background and Hypothesis: 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 analyses show an advantage of the TAVR procedure in patients with high STS or low LVEF. 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.