TAVI had shorter ICU stay, intubation, and discharge times and lower inotropic support need but higher pacemaker implantation (17.1% vs 1.4%) than sutureless AVR.
Does TAVI improve early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes compared to minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients requiring isolated aortic valve replacement?
TAVI offers faster early postprocedural recovery and shorter hospital stays compared to minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement, though it is associated with a significantly higher risk of requiring a permanent pacemaker.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 0% vs 0%
This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of isolated aortic valve replacement using a sutureless bioprosthetic valve (Perceval) and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). This single-center retrospective study evaluated 143 patients who underwent isolated surgical minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and TAVI procedures between January 2020 and February 2025. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data as well as perioperative echocardiographic findings were analyzed and compared. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Sutureless (n = 73) and TAVI (n = 70). The Intensive care unit stay, intubation time, and hospital discharge time were significantly shorter in the TAVI group ( P < .05). The requirement for inotropic support was also lower (2.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). At the 30-day follow-up, the TAVI group had significantly lower mean and maximum transvalvular gradient. The need for pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVI group ( P = .001). Pacemakers were implanted in 1.4% of patients in the sutureless group and 17.1% of patients in the TAVI group. The sutureless group had a significantly longer mean discharge time (5.47 ± 2.86 days) compared to the TAVI group (3.89 ± 2.93 days; P = .001). Similarly, intubation time was significantly longer in the sutureless group (11.90 ± 5.84 hours) compared to the TAVI group (3.37 ± 19.17 hours; P = .001). TAVI is a safe and effective alternative in appropriately selected patients, offering shorter operative times and improved early postprocedural recovery without compromising clinical or hemodynamic outcomes.
Atilgan et al. (Fri,) reported a other. TAVI had shorter ICU stay, intubation, and discharge times and lower inotropic support need but higher pacemaker implantation (17.1% vs 1.4%) than sutureless AVR.