Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 65(03): 212-217
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1586491
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Conventional versus Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Time for Shift in Indications?

Hardy Baumbach
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Samir Ahad
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Christian Rustenbach
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Stephan Hill
2   Department of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Tim Schäufele
2   Department of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Kristina Wachter
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
,
Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Franke
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Stuttgart, Germany
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

18. Februar 2016

24. Juni 2016

Publikationsdatum:
12. August 2016 (online)

Abstract

Background The incidence of degenerative aortic valve diseases has increased along with the life expectancy of our population. Although conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold standard for symptomatic aortic stenosis, transcatheter procedures have proven to be a valid therapeutic option in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare these procedures in a high-risk cohort.

Methods We retrospectively analyzed all symptomatic (dyspnea or angina) high-risk patients (logistic EuroSCORE ≥ 15%) fulfilling the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indications. Most of the AVR patients (n = 180) were operated on before the implementation of TAVI. All TAVI procedures (n = 127) were performed transapically (TA). After matching for age, logistic EuroSCORE, and left ventricular ejection fraction, 82 pairs of patients were evaluated.

Results When comparing AVR with TA-TAVI, there was no difference between groups in survival after 1 year (Kaplan–Meier analysis, 81.1% [95% CI: 72.5–89.7%] vs. 75.8% [95% CI: 66.2–75.9%], Log tank p = 0.660) and the complication rates (n for AVR vs. TA-TAVI: stroke, 2 vs. 0, p = 0.580; acute renal insufficiency, 8 vs. 12, p = 0.340; atrial fibrillation, 24 vs. 26, p = 0.813; pacemaker implantation, 4 vs. 4, p > 0.999). In addition, quality of life did not differ between groups. Patients in the TA-TAVI group had lower mean valvular gradients postoperatively compared with the AVR group (14.6 ± 6.6 vs. 10.2 ± 4.9 mm Hg, p < 0.001).

Conclusion For high-risk patients, the TAVI procedure is comparable with conventional AVR, but is not advantageous. These results do not support the expansion of TAVI to low- or intermediate-risk patients.

 
  • References

  • 1 Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (1) 82-90
  • 2 Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J , et al; Task Force on the Management of Valvular Hearth Disease of the European Society of Cardiology; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2007; 28 (2) 230-268
  • 3 Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO , et al; American College of Cardiology; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association; American Heart Association. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 148 (1) e1-e132
  • 4 Harken DE, Soroff HS, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA, Gupta SK, Lunzer S. Partial and complete prostheses in aortic insufficiency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1960; 40: 744-762
  • 5 Funkat A, Beckmann A, Lewandowski J , et al. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2013: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 62 (5) 380-392
  • 6 Thourani VH, Ailawadi G, Szeto WY , et al. Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: a multiinstitutional study. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (1) 49-55 , discussion 55–56
  • 7 Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Tron C , et al. Early experience with percutaneous transcatheter implantation of heart valve prosthesis for the treatment of end-stage inoperable patients with calcific aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43 (4) 698-703
  • 8 Beckmann A, Funkat AK, Lewandowski J , et al. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2014: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 63 (4) 258-269
  • 9 World Health Organization. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization. International Health Conference, New York; July 22, 1946
  • 10 Bullinger M. German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41 (10) 1359-1366
  • 11 Koertke H, Hoffmann-Koch A, Boethig D , et al. Does the noise of mechanical heart valve prostheses affect quality of life as measured by the SF-36 questionnaire?. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24 (1) 52-57 , discussion 57–58
  • 12 Goldsmith IR, Lip GY, Patel RL. A prospective study of changes in patients' quality of life after aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 2001; 10 (3) 346-353
  • 13 Nötzold A, Hüppe M, Schmidtke C, Blömer P, Uhlig T, Sievers HH. Quality of life in aortic valve replacement: pulmonary autografts versus mechanical prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37 (7) 1963-1966
  • 14 Vaccarino V, Lin ZQ, Kasl SV , et al. Sex differences in health status after coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 2003; 108 (21) 2642-2647
  • 15 Dimarakis I, Rehman SM, Grant SW , et al. Conventional aortic valve replacement for high-risk aortic stenosis patients not suitable for trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: feasibility and outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 40 (3) 743-748
  • 16 Lefèvre T, Kappetein AP, Wolner E , et al; PARTNER EU Investigator Group. One year follow-up of the multi-centre European PARTNER transcatheter heart valve study. Eur Heart J 2011; 32 (2) 148-157
  • 17 Mohr FW, Holzhey D, Möllmann H , et al; GARY Executive Board. The German Aortic Valve Registry: 1-year results from 13,680 patients with aortic valve disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46 (5) 808-816
  • 18 Hamm CW, Möllmann H, Holzhey D , et al; GARY-Executive Board. The German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY): in-hospital outcome. Eur Heart J 2014; 35 (24) 1588-1598
  • 19 Abdel-Wahab M, Mehilli J, Frerker C , et al; CHOICE investigators. Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 311 (15) 1503-1514
  • 20 Rosner MH, Okusa MD. Acute kidney injury associated with cardiac surgery. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1 (1) 19-32
  • 21 Webb JG, Altwegg L, Boone RH , et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on clinical and valve-related outcomes. Circulation 2009; 119 (23) 3009-3016