Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: what is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Although surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice for patients with aortic valve stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) have shown good results. The aim of our multicenter, propensity-matched study was to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of surgical SAVR, transapical TAVR (TA-TAVR), and SU-AVR.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 566 TA-TAVR, 349 SAVR, and 38 SU-AVR patients treated from January 2009 to March 2012. We used a propensity-matching strategy to compare on-pump (SAVR, SU-AVR) and off-pump (TA-TAVR) surgical techniques. The outcomes were analyzed using multivariate weighted logistic regression or multinomial logistic analysis.

RESULTS

In the matched cohorts, the 30-day overall mortality was significantly lower after SAVR than TA-TAVR (7% vs 1.8%, P = .026), with no differences in mortality between SU-AVR and TA-TAVR. Multivariate analysis showed SU-AVR to have a protective effect, although not statistically significant, against aortic regurgitation, pacemaker implantation, and renal replacement therapy compared with TA-TAVR. Compared with TA-TAVR, SAVR demonstrated significant protection against aortic regurgitation (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001) and a trend toward protection against death, pacemaker implantation, and myocardial infarction. The mean transaortic gradient was 10.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg, 11 ± 3.4 mm Hg, and 16.5 ± 5.8 mm Hg in the TA-TAVR, SU-AVR, and SAVR patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality than TA-TAVR. SAVR was also associated with a lower risk of postoperative aortic regurgitation compared with TA-TAVR. We did not find other significant differences in outcomes among matched patients treated with SAVR, SU-AVR, and TA-TAVR.