Impact of varying degrees of renal dysfunction on transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.

Renal impairment portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The relationship between renal dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is incompletely understood. A retrospective review of 1336 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR; 2002-2012) and 321 patients undergoing TAVR (2007-2012) was performed. Patients were divided into 3 glomerular filtration rate (GFR) groups: GFR greater than 60 mL/min, GFR 31 to 60 mL/min, and GFR 30 mL/min or less. Logistic and linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the TAVR effect on outcomes. Risk adjustments were made using the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM). TAVR patients were older (82 vs 65 years; P < .001), had a poorer ejection fraction (48% vs 53%; P < .001), were more likely female (45% vs 41%; P = .23), and had a higher STS PROM (11.9% vs 4.6%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR were 3.5% and 4.1%, respectively (P = .60), a result that marginally favors TAVR after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio = .52, P = .06). In SAVR patients, worsening preoperative renal failure was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (P = .004) and hospital (P < .001) and intensive care unit (ICU) (P < .001) lengths of stay. In contrast, worsening renal function did not influence in-hospital mortality (P = .78) and hospital (P < .23) and ICU (P = .88) lengths of stay in TAVR patients. Worsening renal function was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay in SAVR patients, but not in TAVR patients. This unexpected finding may have important clinical implications in patients with aortic stenosis and preoperative renal dysfunction.

Nguyen TC ，Babaliaros VC ，Razavi SA ，Kilgo PD ，Guyton RA ，Devireddy CM ，Shults CC ，Mavromatis K ，Kanitkar M ，Block P ，Lerakis S ，Thourani VH ... -  《-》

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

D'Onofrio A ，Rizzoli G ，Messina A ，Alfieri O ，Lorusso R ，Salizzoni S ，Glauber M ，Di Bartolomeo R ，Besola L ，Rinaldi M ，Troise G ，Gerosa G ... -  《-》

Clinical profile and outcome of patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk: single-center prospective evaluation according to treatment assignment.

The study sought to assess the clinical profile, outcome, and predictors for mortality of "real-world" high-risk severe aortic stenosis patients according to the mode of treatment assigned. Patients were referred to a dedicated clinic for meticulous screening and multidisciplinary team assessment and 343 were finally assigned treatment (age 81.3 ± 7.2 years, 42.3% men): transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Edwards SAPIEN or CoreValve device, 100 (29.2%); surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), 61 (17.8%); balloon valvuloplasty (as definitive therapy), 27 (7.9%); medication only, 155 (45.2%). No patient was lost to follow-up. The balloon valvuloplasty group had a significantly higher 1-month mortality rate (18.5%) than the TAVR group (3%, P = 0.006) and medical therapy group (3.9%; P = 0.004), without significant difference from the SAVR group (11.5%, P = 0.5). One-year cumulative survival was significantly higher in the TAVR group (92%) than in the other groups (SAVR 71%, balloon valvuloplasty 61.5%, medication 65%; all P < 0.001). Among survivors, 1-year rates of high functional class (NYHA I/II) were as follows: TAVR, 84.6%; SAVR, 63.3%; balloon valvuloplasty, 18.2%; medication, 21.4% (TAVR vs. SAVR, P = 0.04; SAVR vs. balloon valvuloplasty or medical therapy, P = 0.01). On multivariate regression analysis, renal failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.3, P < 0.001), not performing TAVR (HR = 4.9, P < 0.001), and pulmonary pressure (10 mm Hg, HR = 1.2, P = 0.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality. TAVR, performed in carefully selected high-risk patients, is associated with an excellent survival rate and high functional class. Patients treated with another of the available modalities, including SAVR, had a worse outcome, regardless of which alternative treatment they receive.

Dvir D ，Sagie A ，Porat E ，Assali A ，Shapira Y ，Vaknin-Assa H ，Shafir G ，Bental T ，Nevzorov R ，Battler A ，Kornowski R ... -  《-》

Outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction: results from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial (cohort A).

Elmariah S ，Palacios IF ，McAndrew T ，Hueter I ，Inglessis I ，Baker JN ，Kodali S ，Leon MB ，Svensson L ，Pibarot P ，Douglas PS ，Fearon WF ，Kirtane AJ ，Maniar HS ，Passeri JJ ，PARTNER Investigators ... -  《-》

Effect of severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction on hospital outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement: results from a propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT multicenter study.

Despite demonstration of the superior outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus optimal medical therapy for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, studies comparing TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this high-risk group have been lacking. We performed propensity matching for age, gender, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority at hospital admission, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, EuroSCORE, and associated cardiac diseases. Next, the 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity of 162 patients (81 TAVI vs 81 AVR) with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) were analyzed at the Italian National Institute of Health. The 30-day mortality was comparable (P = .37) between the 2 groups. The incidence of periprocedural acute myocardial infarction (P = .55), low output state (P = .27), stroke (P = .36), and renal dysfunction (peak creatinine level, P = .57) was also similar between the 2 groups. TAVI resulted in significantly greater postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .01) and AVR in more periprocedural transfusions (P < .01) despite a similar transfusion rate per patient (2.8 ± 3.7 for TAVI vs 4.4 ± 3.8 for AVR; P = .08). The postprocedural intensive care unit stay (median, 2 days after TAVI vs 3 days after AVR; P = .34), intermediate care unit stay (median, 0 days after both TAVI and AVR; P = .94), and hospitalization (median, 11 days after TAVI vs 14 days after AVR; P = .51) were comparable. In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, both TAVI and AVR are valid treatment options, with comparable hospital mortality and periprocedural morbidity. Comparisons of the mid- to long-term outcomes are mandatory.

Onorati F ，D'Errigo P ，Grossi C ，Barbanti M ，Ranucci M ，Covello DR ，Rosato S ，Maraschini A ，Santoro G ，Tamburino C ，Seccareccia F ，Santini F ，Menicanti L ，OBSERVANT Research Group ... -  《-》