Key result
SAVR for pure AR linked to ~81% higher in-hospital mortality versus SAVR for AS.
Why the study?
TAVR is not recommended for pure aortic regurgitation due to technical difficulties, and large registry data on its use in AR are lacking.
What are the in-hospital outcomes of TAVR and SAVR for pure aortic regurgitation compared to aortic stenosis?
Observational (n=138,237)
Yes
What are the in-hospital outcomes of TAVR and SAVR for pure aortic regurgitation compared to aortic stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.7% vs 2.6%
TAVR is increasingly used off-label for pure aortic regurgitation with improving in-hospital mortality rates, though SAVR for AR carries higher in-hospital mortality than for stenosis despite lower baseline risk.
Higher SAVR mortality in pure AR warrants caution; leaves open optimal TAVR role pending prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is routinely used in patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. Due to potential technical difficulties, TAVR is not recommended for pure aortic regurgitation (AR). Smaller studies reported its use in AR, but data from big registries are lacking. The present study analyzes the nationwide use of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR in patients with AR from 2008 until 2015. METHODS: We identified 138,237 cases of aortic valve replacement in Germany based on ICD and OPS codes. RESULTS: Of 13.2% SAVR-cases and 1.3% of TAVR cases were performed in AR. AR patients undergoing SAVR were younger with lower logistic EuroSCORE (stenosis: 6.1 ± 5.6; AR: 4.5 ± 4.9). Nevertheless, stroke rates, bleedings, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality were higher (mortality: stenosis 2.6%, AR: 4.7%). In the TAVR group, patients with AR were at higher operative risk (logistic EuroSCORE: transfemoral (TF)-TAVR: stenosis: 14.3 ± 10.4; AR: 17.3 ± 13.3. Transapical (TA)-TAVR: stenosis: 16.1 ± 11.4; AR: 15.7 ± 12.2). Stroke rates were lower, but bleedings and prolonged ventilation occurred more frequently after TF-TAVR in AR compared to stenosis. The mortality varied markedly (TF-TAVR: 15.2% in 2011; 2.8% in 2015; TA-TAVR: 17.7% in 2012 and 0% in 2014). CONCLUSION: TAVR is off-label used in AR in clinical practice. TAVR seems to be a safe option for AR with regard to in-hospital outcomes. However, further research evaluating long-term outcomes is required to establish the feasibility of TAVR in pure AR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stachon et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Aortic valve replacement (pure aortic regurgitation vs aortic stenosis) (n=138,237). Pure aortic regurgitation vs. Aortic stenosis was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (SAVR cohort). In a nationwide German registry, patients undergoing SAVR for pure aortic regurgitation had higher in-hospital mortality than those with stenosis (4.7% vs 2.6%), while TAVR mortality improved over time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: