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.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Results differ between transaortic and open surgical aortic valve replacement in women.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-known impact of female sex on outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR), few studies investigated its role after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: After propensity-matching for age, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, left ventricular function and associated cardiac diseases, hospital mortality, and procedure-related morbidities of 388 women (194 TAVR versus 194 sAVR)-of 5,231 patients enrolled in 70 centers participating in this prospective multicenter national registry-were analyzed at a central management unit of the Italian National Institute of Health. RESULTS: Although hospital mortality was comparable (4.1% TAVR versus 3.1% sAVR; p = 0.177), women undergoing sAVR showed a higher rate of transfusion (63.9% versus 37.1% TAVR; p = 0.0001); higher number of transfusions per patient (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 2.3 ± 0.3 TAVR; p = 0.049); a higher incidence of low cardiac output state (5.7% versus 3.6% TAVR; p = 0.017) and acute renal failure (8.8% versus 4.1% TAVR; p = 0.01); and higher mean transprosthetic gradients (15.7 ± 12.6 mm Hg versus 11.9 ± 10.7 mm Hg TAVR; p = 0.004). In contrast, women undergoing TAVR experienced significant postprocedural aortic regurgitation (mild, 37.6% versus 7.7% sAVR; moderate-to-severe, 7.1% versus 1.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001) and a higher rate of stroke (7.7% versus 2.5% sAVR; p = 0.037), major vascular complications (9.3% versus 0.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001), pacemaker implantation (12.4% versus 6.2% sAVR; p = 0.004), need for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (1.0% versus 0% sAVR; p = 0.007), and longer intermediate care unit length of stay (2.5 ± 4.4 days versus 1.4 ± 2.6 days sAVR; p = 0.008). Perioperative myocardial infarction and lengths of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization were comparable (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing sAVR and TAVR experienced different periprocedural morbidities. These data strongly suggest the need to strictly individualize the indications.