RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The study aim was to compare the outcome of transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TaTAVR) and traditional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in redo from two real-world registries. METHODS: The 30-day and follow up outcome of 462 patients enrolled in two multicenter redo registries, treated with redo-AVR (RAVR; n = 292 patients) or TaTAVR (n = 170 patients), were analyzed according to VARC-2 criteria, stratified also by propensity-matching analysis. RESULTS: TaTAVR-patients were older and sicker than RAVR patients, and reported a higher all-cause 30-day mortality (p <0.01), a higher risk for all-cause mortality (p = 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.05) at follow up, but similar 30-day cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.12). Prolonged intubation (p <0.01) and Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) 2/3 p = 0.02) prevailed in RAVR. TaTAVR patients reported a higher level of major/life-threatening/disabling bleeding (p <0.01) and 'early safety-events' (ES) (p = 0.04). Thirty-day acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and follow up freedom from acute heart failure (AHF), from stroke and from reinterventions were similar (p = NS). The NYHA class was better after RAVR (p <0.01). The intermediate-to-high risk (Logistic EuroSCORE RAVR 17.1 ± 8.5; TaTAVR 16.0 ± 17.0) propensity-matched population demonstrated comparable 30-day and follow up all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, ES, AMI, stroke, prolonged intubation, follow up freedom from AHF, from stroke and from reinterventions and NYHA class. TaTAVR still reported lower levels of AKIN 2/3 (2.2% versus 15.6%, p = 0.03) and shorter hospitalization (9.5 ± 3.4 days versus 12.0 ± 7.0 days, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome differences between RAVR and TaTAVR in redo-scenarios reflect methodological differences and different baseline risk profiles. Propensity-matched patients showed a better renal outcome after TaTAVR. *Drs. Onorati and D'Onofrio contributed equally to this article and should both be considered as first authors.
