Abstract:Background: Although the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently become an attractive strategy in prohibitive surgical high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), the most appropriate treatment option in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk profile- whether conventional surgery (SAVR) or TAVR-has been widely debated. Methods: One hundred and forty-three consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk were prospectively enrolled and selected to undergo SAVR (Group 1 [G1], n = 63) or TAVR (Group 2 [G2], n = 80) following a multidisciplinary evaluation including frailty, anatomy, and degree of atherosclerotic disease of the aorta/peripheral vessels. The mean logistic EuroSCORE (G1 = 20.11 ± 7.144 versus G2 = 23.33 ± 8.97; P = .022), STS score (G1 = 5.722 ± 1.309 versus G2 = 5.958 ± 1.689; P = .347), and preoperative demographics such as sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), body mass index (BMI), peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, renal impairment and syncope were similar. Of note, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was more frequent in TAVR patients (G2 [46.2%] versus G1 [19.0%]; P = .001), whereas pulmonary hypertension was more frequent in SAVR group (G1 [47.6%] versus G2 [17.5%]; P = .000). The SAVR was performed with either a mechanical or tissue valve; meanwhile, TAVR was performed with either Core valve prosthesis or Edwards-Sapiens XT valve. Results: SAVR group showed higher incidence of some postoperative complications compared to TAVR, namely, postoperative bleeding (4.8% versus 0.0%; P = .048), tamponade (4.8% versus 0.0%; P = .048) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (34.9% versus 10.0%; P = .000), whereas TAVR group had a higher incidence of other sets of postoperative complications, namely, left bundle branch block (58.8% versus 4.8%; P = .000), need for permanent pacemaker implantation (25.0% versus 1.6%; P = .000) and peripheral vascular complications (15.0% versus 0.0%; P = .001). On the contrary, when the two groups were compared they did not show any significant difference regarding anemia requiring more than two units of blood transfusion, postoperative renal failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospital mortality. P = .534, .873, .258, .373 and .072 respectively. Hospital mortality was similar among the two groups (G1 = 0% versus G2 = 5%; P = .072). At the 24-month follow-up, overall mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were comparable between the two groups but prosthetic regurgitation was better in SAVR group (G2 = 8 patients [10.0%] versus G1 = 1 patient [1.6%] in SAVR group; P = .040). Conclusion: In this study, we could not detect an advantage in survival when SAVR or TAVR were utilized in intermediate to high surgical risk patients needing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.

Job matters: differences in risk assessment of percutaneous aortic valve replacement between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons

Sex-related differences among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement-a propensity score matched study

Variation in patients' perceptions of elective percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: cross sectional study

Treating the patients in the 'grey-zone' with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

Transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: an updated meta-analysis

Short- and Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Balloon-expandable Versus Self-expanding Valves in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: comparison of results from randomized controlled trials and real-world data

Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Balloon Expandable And Self Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation In Low-Risk Patients

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Percutaneous versus surgical approach to aortic valve replacement with coronary revascularization: A systematic review andmeta-analysis

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

Failure of Surgical Aortic Valve Prostheses: An Analysis of Heart Team Decisions and Postoperative Outcomes

Infective endocarditis after isolated aortic valve replacement: comparison between catheter-interventional and surgical valve replacement

Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: Evidence from a meta-analysis

Outcomes of CT- or CMR-guided TAVR according to sex: a secondary analysis of the randomized TAVR-CMR trial

A Comparative Study of TAVR versus SAVR in Moderate and High-Risk Surgical Patients: Hospital Outcome and Midterm Results

In-hospital outcomes of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves in Germany

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis