Comparison of Outcomes and Discharge Location After Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Abstract

BackgroundPublished trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, differences in morbidity and discharge location between the 2 procedures are less thoroughly characterized. MethodsFrom January 1, 2006 to January 7, 2020, 1059 patients with severe aortic stenosis after CABG underwent either SAVR (n = 315/30%), transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR) (n = 575/54%), or alternative access TAVR (n = 169/16%) at a single, tertiary care, academic institution. Propensity-weighted matching was used to compare morbidity, mortality, length of postprocedure stay, and nonhome discharge between TF-TAVR (effective n = 163) and SAVR (effective n = 163) groups. ResultsAmong propensity-weighted groups, the TF-TAVR group experienced fewer transfusions than the SAVR group (effective n = 16 [9.5%] vs. 132 [81%]; p < 0 .0001), less new-onset atrial fibrillation (effective n = 5.1 [3.1%] vs. 43 [27%]; p = 0.009), and less prolonged mechanical ventilation >24 ​hours (effective n = 0.41 [0.25%] vs. 30 [18%]; p <0.0001). Permanent pacemaker implant was 9.3% (effective n = 13) after TF-TAVR vs. 5.5% (effective n = 7.9; p = 0.2) after SAVR, stroke 0.41% (effective n = 0.67) vs. 2.1% (effective n = 3.5; p = 0.2), and operative mortality 0.5% (effective n = 0.8) vs. 1.7% (effective n = 2.8; p = 0.8). The TF-TAVR group had shorter postprocedure lengths of stay (2.0 vs. 7.6 days; p < 0.0001). Discharge home was more common after TF-TAVR than SAVR (effective n = 156 [95%] vs. 118 [73%]; p = 0.01). ConclusionsFor patients developing severe aortic stenosis after CABG, TF-TAVR rather than SAVR should be strongly considered because of lower morbidity, shorter length of stay, and greater likelihood of home discharge.