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.

Bicuspid Aortic Valve dilemma: TAVI or SAVR? Insights from the NOTION-2 trial

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Low-Risk Tricuspid or Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis: The NOTION-2 Trial

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease: A Systematic Review

Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: from the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

TAVI for severe aortic stenosis ... and other research

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

A comparison of neurological event and mortality rates between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Bicuspid Aortic Valve with Aortic Stenosis: a Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared With Surgical Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

Three-year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis.

Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Abstract 13931: Comparison of Inpatient Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Bicuspid versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: An Insight From National Inpatient Sample

The noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic disease: Evidence based on 16 randomized controlled trials

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve disease: does conventional surgery have a future?

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

Fractional Flow Reserve in Left Main Bifurcation from a Single Fluoroscopic View Versus Computed Tomography

Three‐year clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic disease: Comparison between self‐expanding and balloon‐expandable valves