Five-Year Outcomes of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in a Real World Population.

BACKGROUND The OBSERVANT study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) showed that mortality at 1 year is similar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensity-matched patients with aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk. We report the 5-year outcomes of the Italian OBSERVANT study. METHODS AND RESULTS The unadjusted enrolled population (N=7618) between December 2010 and June 2012 included 5707 patients on SAVR and 1911 patients on TAVR. The propensity score method was applied to select 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. All outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases. The primary end points of this analysis were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years. The matched population had a total of 1300 patients (650 per group). The propensity score method generated a low and intermediate-risk population (mean logistic EuroSCORE 2: 5.1±6.2% versus 4.9±5.1%, SAVR versus transfemoral TAVR; P=0.485). At 5 years, the rate of 5 death from any cause was 35.8% in the surgical group and 48.3% in the transcatheter group (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P=0.002). Similarly, TAVR was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as compared with SAVR (42.5% versus 54.0%; hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63; P=0.003). The cumulative incidence of cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization were similar in the study groups at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The present results suggest that at 5 years, in a real-world population with severe aortic stenosis and at low and intermediate risk, suggest that SAVR is associated in with lower mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rates than transfemoral TAVR performed using first-generation devices. These data need to be confirmed in randomized trials using new-generation TAVR devices.

[1]  P. Leprince,et al.  Five-Year Clinical Outcome and Valve Durability After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients: FRANCE-2 Registry , 2018, Circulation.

[2]  R. Lange,et al.  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 , 2018, Circulation.

[3]  M. Leon,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with new-generation devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, International journal of cardiology.

[4]  J. Webb,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 2017: state of the art. , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  G. Tarantini,et al.  Long term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a systematic review of 5-year survival and beyond. , 2017, Annals of cardiothoracic surgery.

[6]  J. Zamorano,et al.  SOURCE 3: 1-year outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the latest generation of the balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve , 2017, European heart journal.

[7]  Andrew S. Mugglin,et al.  Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement in Intermediate‐Risk Patients , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  M. Mack,et al.  Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  F. Santini,et al.  1-Year Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Italian OBSERVANT Study. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  A. Colombo,et al.  5-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With CoreValve Prosthesis. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  M. Mack,et al.  5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[12]  M. Mack,et al.  5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[13]  L. W. Andersen,et al.  Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  R. Lange,et al.  Perioperative Results and Complications in 15,964 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacements: Prospective Data From the GARY Registry. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  H. Gray,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the United KingdomCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE , 2015 .

[16]  S. Kaul Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Maurice Buchbinder,et al.  Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Sean M. O'Brien,et al.  Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. , 2013, JAMA.

[19]  F. Santini,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from an intermediate risk propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT study. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.