TY - JOUR
T1 - Patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated interventional or surgical aortic valve implantation for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: One-year results from the German aortic valve registry
AU - Werner, Nicolas
AU - Zahn, Ralf
AU - Beckmann, Andreas
AU - Bauer, Timm
AU - Bleiziffer, Sabine
AU - Hamm, Christian W.
AU - Berkeredjian, Raffi
AU - Berkowitsch, Alexander
AU - Mohr, Friedrich W.
AU - Landwehr, Sandra
AU - Katus, Hugo A.
AU - Harringer, Wolfgang
AU - Ensminger, Stephan
AU - Frerker, Christian
AU - Möllmann, Helge
AU - Walther, Thomas
AU - Schneider, Steffen
AU - Lange, Rüdiger
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded by the German Cardiac Society, German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, and German Heart Foundation. Unrestricted grants were received from different medical product manufacturers: Edwards Lifesciences Germany GmbH, Medtronic GmbH, Sorin Group – LivaNova, Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, and Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH. Donations from foundations and medical product manufacturers were Deutsche Herzstif-tung, Dr. Rolf. M. Schreite Stiftung, and the Maquet-Gettinge Group.
Funding Information:
Dr Zahn received research grants from Medtronic and Edwards. Dr Hamm received speakers’ honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards and serves in the advisory board of Medtronic. Dr Ensminger was a proctor and consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, was a proctor and member of the scientific advisory board of JenaValve, received speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Symetis, and received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Symetis. Dr Frerker received a proctors’ salary from Medtronic, St Jude Medical, and Boston Scientific and speakers’ honoraria from Edwards Life-sciences. Dr Möllmann received proctor and/or speakers’ honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, St Jude Medical, and Symetis. Dr Lange reported lecture fees, advisory board membership, and royalties from Medtronic; lecture fees from LivaNova; lecture fees from and shares in Highlife; and lecture fees from St Jude Medical. Drs Werner, Beckmann, Bauer, Mohr, Berkowitsch, Landwehr, Katus, Harringer, Walther, and Schneider report no conflict.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, real-world data comparing indications and clinical outcomes of patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated TAVR with those undergoing SAVR are scarce. METHODS: We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%–8%) who underwent isolated TAVR or conventional SAVR within the prospective, all-comers German Aortic Valve Registry. RESULTS: A total of 7613 patients at intermediate surgical risk underwent isolated TAVR (n=6469) or SAVR (n=1144) at 92 sites in Germany between 2012 and 2014. Patients treated by TAVR were significantly older (82.5±5.0 versus 76.6±6.7 years, P<0.001) and had higher risk scores (logistic EuroSCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation]: 21.2±12.3% versus 14.2±9.5%, P<0.001; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 5.6±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0, P<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that advanced age, coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association class III/IV, pulmonary hypertension, prior cardiac decompensation, elective procedure, arterial occlusive disease, no diabetes mellitus, and a smaller aortic valve area were associated with performing TAVR instead of SAVR (all P<0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were equal for TAVR and SAVR (3.6% versus 3.6%, P=0.976), whereas unadjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients after TAVR (17.5% versus 10.8%, P<0.001). After propensity score matching, the difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR was no longer significant (17.1% versus 15.7%, P=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at intermediate risk undergoing TAVR differ significantly from those treated with SAVR with regard to age and baseline characteristics. Isolated TAVR and SAVR were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.6%. In the propensity score analysis, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR.
AB - BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, real-world data comparing indications and clinical outcomes of patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated TAVR with those undergoing SAVR are scarce. METHODS: We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%–8%) who underwent isolated TAVR or conventional SAVR within the prospective, all-comers German Aortic Valve Registry. RESULTS: A total of 7613 patients at intermediate surgical risk underwent isolated TAVR (n=6469) or SAVR (n=1144) at 92 sites in Germany between 2012 and 2014. Patients treated by TAVR were significantly older (82.5±5.0 versus 76.6±6.7 years, P<0.001) and had higher risk scores (logistic EuroSCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation]: 21.2±12.3% versus 14.2±9.5%, P<0.001; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 5.6±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0, P<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that advanced age, coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association class III/IV, pulmonary hypertension, prior cardiac decompensation, elective procedure, arterial occlusive disease, no diabetes mellitus, and a smaller aortic valve area were associated with performing TAVR instead of SAVR (all P<0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were equal for TAVR and SAVR (3.6% versus 3.6%, P=0.976), whereas unadjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients after TAVR (17.5% versus 10.8%, P<0.001). After propensity score matching, the difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR was no longer significant (17.1% versus 15.7%, P=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at intermediate risk undergoing TAVR differ significantly from those treated with SAVR with regard to age and baseline characteristics. Isolated TAVR and SAVR were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.6%. In the propensity score analysis, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058917569&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033048
DO - 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033048
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 30571255
AN - SCOPUS:85058917569
SN - 0009-7322
VL - 138
SP - 2611
EP - 2623
JO - Circulation
JF - Circulation
IS - 23
ER -