Five-Year Survival After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis—Do We Choose the Right Treatment for Each Patient? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Background and Objectives: The treatment of choice for aortic valve stenosis in patients with low and intermediate risk is still debated. In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, 326 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while 341 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The two populations were propensity score matched by age, gender and Euroscore II. The survival rate of patients during median 5-year follow-up between SAVR and TAVI patients was evaluated. Results: After propensity score matching, 94 pairs of patients were compared and the mean standard deviation age of patients, sex (female) and Euroscore II were 77.5 (6.6) versus 76.6 (6.5) years, 51.1% versus 51.1% and 3.3 (1.88)% versus 3.0 (1,84)%, respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in transcatheter group (21.3% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001). No difference in length of ICU and in-hospital stay was observed, p = 0.08 and p = 0.12, respectively. During follow-up the presence of more than moderate insufficiency of the prosthetic valve postoperatively was significantly less frequent in the surgical versus transcatheter (0% versus 14.3%). Survival rates over 1, 3 and 5 years did not differ in surgical versus transcatheter group (93.6%, 81.9% and 62.8% versus 86.2%, 69.1% and 59.6%, respectively (p = 0.16)). Conclusions: Short- and long-term survival rates were similar in patients who underwent transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement, whereas SAVR showed superior results concerning the postoperative detection of residual regurgitation and need for PPM. It is extremely important to personalize the choice of treatment according to patients’ age, clinical status and life expectancy.