Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch compared to surgical replacement (29.4% vs 53.7%; OR 2.8 for SAVR; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Limited data exist on the effect of implanted valve size on prosthesis-patient mismatch incidence and aortic gradient after TAVR versus SAVR.
Does TAVR reduce prosthesis-patient mismatch and aortic gradient compared to SAVR in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=463)
Does TAVR reduce prosthesis-patient mismatch and aortic gradient compared to SAVR in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
TAVR is associated with less prosthesis-patient mismatch and lower aortic gradients compared to SAVR, particularly in patients receiving valve sizes ≤23 mm.
May inform valve choice in mismatch-prone patients; leaves open randomized confirmation of clinical impact.
Objective Limited data is available about the effect of implanted valve size on prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) incidence and aortic gradient (AG) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We compared PPM incidence and postprocedural AG between TAVR and SAVR patients considering the impact of implanted valve size. Methods From March 20, 2012, to September 30, 2015, 563 consecutive patients underwent TAVR ( n = 419) or isolated SAVR ( n = 144). Postprocedural transthoracic echocardiography was obtained within 30 days; AG, effective orifice area (EOA), and EOA index were calculated. Results A total of 381 patients in TAVR group and 82 patients in SAVR group were included. Mean preoperative AG and mean aortic valve area were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Postprocedural AG was significantly lower in TAVR than SAVR group, 7.74 ± 5.39 versus 14.27 ± 8.16 ( P < 0.001). Between patients who had TAVR and SAVR with a valve size ≤23 mm, SAVR patients were 3 times more likely to have greater than mild AG after the procedure, OR: 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.9) ( P < 0.001). PPM incidence was significantly higher in SAVR group than TAVR group, 44 (53.7%) versus 112 (29.4%), OR = 2.8 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.5) ( P < 0.001). The PPM incidence was also higher in SAVR group than TAVR group among those who had the procedures with a valve size ≤23 mm, 35 (64.8%) versus 56 (47.9%), OR = 2 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.9) ( P = 0.048). Postprocedural outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions In comparison to SAVR, TAVR is associated with less PPM and lower AG, especially in patients receiving a valve size ≤23 mm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aalaei‐Andabili et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=463). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) incidence (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7 to 4.5, p=< 0.001). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch compared to surgical replacement (29.4% vs 53.7%; OR 2.8 for SAVR; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: