Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients over 85 years old.

Abstract

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of in very old patients with severe aortic stenosis is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the preferred alternative. Therefore, we sought to evaluate outcomes in very old patients who underwent SAVR versus TAVI. A total of 169 consecutive patients aged ≥85 years underwent TAVI (n = 68) or SAVR (n = 101). A propensity score adjustment was used to compare outcomes including cost analysis. The propensity score generated 40 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. The TAVI group experienced atrioventricular block (37.5% vs 5%, P < 0.01) more frequently, a longer stay in the intensive care unit (median 5 days, range 1-35 vs median 2 days, range 1-6, P < 0.01) but a lower rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation (15% vs 47.5%, P < 0.01). The 30-day mortality rate was similar in the unmatched and matched cohorts (8.8% vs 5.0%, P = 0.32; 10% vs 7.5%, P = 0.69). One, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates (80% vs 90%, 56% vs 79%, 37% vs 71%, P < 0.01) and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (72% vs 90%, 46% vs 76%, 17% vs 68%, P < 0.01) were lower in the TAVI group. An overall cost analysis indicated that TAVI was more expensive (€2084 vs €19 891). In patients 85 years and older, SAVR seems to offer good short- and mid-term clinical outcomes compared to TAVI. Advanced age alone would not be an indication for TAVI in old-old patients.