Minimally invasive versus transapical versus transfemoral aortic valve implantation: A one-to-one-to-one propensity score–matched analysis

Objectives: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the treatment of choice in inoperable and high-risk patients, the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation relative to conventional aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy in patients with moderate surgical risk remains unclear. Methods: We consecutively enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacements via ministernotomy (n = 1929), transapical (n = 607), and transfemoral (n = 1273) aortic valve implantations from a single center during the period from July 2009 to July 2017. Of those, we conducted a 1:1:1 propensity score matching according to 23 preoperative risk factors. Results: We were able to find 177 triplets (n = 531). The median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was 3.0% versus 3.4% versus 2.9%, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 3.2% versus 3.6% versus 3.4%, respectively. According to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria, there were no significant periprocedural differences regarding 30-day mortality (2.3% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 4.5% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P =.34), stroke (1.1% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.6% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P =.84), or myocardial infarction (0.6% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.0% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 0.0% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P =.83). Both intensive care and hospitalization times were significantly longer in the transapical group. Regarding midterm survival, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a tendency toward a less favorable outcome (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.31; P =.17) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Conclusions: In this real-world propensity score–matched minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation cohort of intermediate-risk patients, early mortality was not significantly different, whereas the rates of periprocedural complications were different depending on the approach. During follow-up, there was a tendency in the transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation group toward a less favorable survival outcome, although there was no significant difference among the 3 groups.