Aortic and mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched patients.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have superior outcomes compared with aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR). Considering significant MR is frequently addressed with a mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR) at the time of open aortic valve replacement, this study compares TAVR and AVR/MVR in propensity-matched pairs of patients with significant MR.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients presenting with moderate or greater MR undergoing either TAVR or AVR/MVR at a single institution from 2002 to 2012. Patients who underwent other cardiac operations or had preoperative endocarditis were excluded. Of 306 patients in the AVR/MVR group and 147 patients in the TAVR group, propensity analysis matched 40 pairs of patients. Standard univariate, logistic regression, and propensity matching techniques were used.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between TAVR patients and AVR/MVR patients, respectively, in preoperative average age (76 ± 7.4 versus 78 ± 6.9 years, p = 0.68), ejection fraction (53 ± 15 versus 51 ± 17, p = 0.68), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (9.9 ± 3.1 versus 9.3 ± 3.4, p = 0.61), or 30-day mortality (7.5% versus 2.5%, p = 0.6). Postoperative MR was significantly improved for both TAVR and AVR/MVR, but AVR/MVR showed significantly greater improvement (-2.33 ± 1.23 versus -0.88 ± 0.79, p < 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, midterm survival was significantly better in the AVR/MVR group compared with the TAVR group (log rank p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In a propensity-matched analysis of patients with significant MR, AVR/MVR and TAVR had equivalent perioperative outcomes, but AVR/MVR had more reduction in MR and may have superior midterm survival when compared with TAVR among 30-day survivors.