Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk

Abstract

This comparative effectiveness cohort study examines 30-day and 3-year survival among Finnish patients with aortic stenosis at low operative risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.

Key Points

Question

Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement achieve similar results compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low operative risk with severe aortic stenosis?

Findings

In this comparative effectiveness cohort study of 2841 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis from Finalnd, propensity score–matching analysis showed similar 30-day and 3-year survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Meaning

Patients with severe aortic stenosis at low operative risk may be offered transcatheter aortic valve replacement instead of surgical aortic valve replacement.

Abstract

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.