Aortic Valve Repair Decreases Risks of VRE in AI at 10 Years: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve repair (AVr) has emerged as a feasible and effective alternative to AV replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic insufficiency (AI); however, little data exist comparing outcomes. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare early and long-term valve-related complications between AVr and AVR in the treatment of AI.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study of all patients (n = 417) undergoing AVr (n = 264) or AVR (n = 153) for primary AI. Propensity matching using a 1:1 greedy matching algorithm identified 140 patients using 6 covariates (age, sex, left ventricular function, size, presence of aortopathy, and urgency of operation) for comparison. The primary outcome was a composite of all valve-related events (VREs), including endocarditis, myocardial infarction stroke, transient ischemic attack, thromboembolisms, bleeding, and AV reoperation. VREs were defined as per published guidelines. Survival and freedom from VREs were reported using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Propensity matching identified 70 well-matched pairs with no major differences in baseline demographics, comorbidities, or AI severity (P = .57). Perioperative outcomes showed no significant differences in VREs (AVR 8 vs AVr 7; P = .78) or mortality (AVR 3 vs AVr 1; P = .62). Event-free survival from the primary outcome at 10 years was significantly better after AVr than after AVR (82% vs 68%; P = .024), with no significant differences in 10-year overall survival between groups (82% vs 72%; P = .29). No significant differences in AI severity (P = .07) or reoperation rate (P = .44) were detected between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a lower long-term risk of VREs with repair compared with replacement, with low mortality and comparable durability. Further prospective randomized control trials are necessary to formally compare outcomes and determine superiority.