Key result
MI-SAVR is linked to ~88% 3-year survival versus TF-TAVR alongside fewer pacemakers and leaks.
Why the study?
Intermediate-term survival and valve-related complications comparing MI-SAVR using rapid-deployment valves with TF-TAVR remained to be evaluated.
Does minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment valves improve survival and reduce complications compared to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Does minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment valves improve survival and reduce complications compared to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
MI-SAVR with rapid-deployment valves may offer improved survival and lower rates of pacemakers and paravalvular leak compared to TF-TAVR in older, low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.
MI-SAVR with rapid-deployment valves was associated with lower mortality than TF-TAVR; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm superiority.
OBJECTIVES This study evaluates intermediate-term survival and valve related complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement (MI-SAVR) using rapid-deployment (RD) valves compared with those receiving transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) after propensity matched analysis. METHODS All consecutive patients treated with either isolated MI-SAVR with a RD valve or TF-TAVR at a single cardiac-surgery center were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score was created and exact matching after maximum propensity score difference was applied. Nearest-neighbor matching was conducted with a caliper of 0.2 standard deviations of the logit of the propensity score, without replacement and with a 1:1 matching ratio. RESULTS From April 2011 to June 2022, 926 patients underwent either isolated MI-SAVR with a RD valve (n = 400) or TF-TAVR (n = 526). After propensity score matching the final cohort (n = 366) included 183 matched pairs. Operative mortality was 0% after MI-SAVR compared with 3.3% (n = 6) following TF-TAVR (p = 0.03). Perioperative stroke occurred in 2.7% (n = 5, MI-SAVR) vs 2.2% (n = 4, TF-TAVR, p = 1). At 3-years, MI-SAVR was associated with significant lower rates of paravalvular leakage (2.2 vs 13.8%, p < 0.001), new pacemaker implantations (6.6 vs 14.8%, p = 0.01) and a composite end-point of thromboembolic and major bleeding events (7.2% vs 12.7%, p = 0.025). No difference between aortic valve re-interventions and stroke were identified between groups. Survival at 1- and 3-years follow-up was 98% and 88% (MI-SAVR) and 88% and 67% (TF-TAVR) respectively (p < 0.001). EuroScore II emerged as an independent predictor of mortality (HR 1.12 [1.02, 1.23], p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive SAVR with RD-valves could represent a treatment modality to TF-TAVR for severe AS in an older, low-risk patient cohort. In our retrospective cohort study MI-SAVR was linked to improved survival and lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leakage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Werner et al. (2026) studied this question. Minimally invasive SAVR with rapid-deployment valves showed 0% operative mortality vs 3.3% TF-TAVR, higher 3-year survival (88% vs 67%), and fewer pacemakers and leaks.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: