Transcarotid Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and unfavorable iliofemoral access. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative access in suboptimal transfemoral candidates, but no data exist comparing TC-TAVR and SAVR. The main objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes in a propensity-matched population of TC-TAVR and SAVR patients with severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 786 patients (SAVR, 352; TC-TAVR, 434) were included, and a total of 182 patients were propensity-matched and included in each group. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and procedure-related or valve-related hospitalization at 30 days and at 1 year. Data were prospectively collected in dedicated databases, and clinical events were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the matched groups, and the mean age and Society for Thoracic Surgeons score of the study population were 75 years and 3.6%, respectively. At 30 days, the SAVR group showed a higher rate of the primary composite outcome compared with the TC-TAVR group (12.6% versus 4.3%; hazard ratio, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.45-5.94]). Acute kidney injury stages 2 to 4, bleeding events, and new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred more often in the SAVR group during the hospital period (<0.001). In contrast, vascular complications and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation occurred more often in the TC-TAVR group (=0.01 and =0.001, respectively). At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups in the primary outcome rates (SAVR, 19.7% versus TC-TAVR, 12.7%; hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.98-2.73]).

CONCLUSIONS

TC-TAVR was associated with improved 30-day clinical outcomes compared with SAVR, with no significant differences in death, stroke, and hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. These findings suggest that TC-TAVR may be a valid alternative to SAVR in nontransfemoral-TAVR candidates.