Minimally invasive versus transapical versus transfemoral aortic valve implantation: A one-to-one-to-one propensity score–matched analysis

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Smita Scholtz¹  Nobuyuki Furukawa²  Eric Emmel³  Oliver Kuss⁴ 

[1] Clinic of Cardiology, Heart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany;Clinic of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany;German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Institute for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Institute for Biometry and Epidemiology, Düsseldorf, Germany;Institute of Medical Statistics, Heinrich-Heine-University, Medical Faculty, Düsseldorf, Germany

关键词: aortic valve replacement;    minimally invasive cardiac surgery;    propensity score analysis;    transcatheter aortic valve implantation;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.104

学科分类：心脏病和心血管学

来源: Mosby, Inc.

【 摘 要 】

ObjectivesAlthough transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the treatment of choice in inoperable and high-risk patients, the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation relative to conventional aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy in patients with moderate surgical risk remains unclear.MethodsWe consecutively enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacements via ministernotomy (n = 1929), transapical (n = 607), and transfemoral (n = 1273) aortic valve implantations from a single center during the period from July 2009 to July 2017. Of those, we conducted a 1:1:1 propensity score matching according to 23 preoperative risk factors.ResultsWe were able to find 177 triplets (n = 531). The median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was 3.0% versus 3.4% versus 2.9%, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 3.2% versus 3.6% versus 3.4%, respectively. According to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria, there were no significant periprocedural differences regarding 30-day mortality (2.3% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 4.5% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .34), stroke (1.1% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.6% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .84), or myocardial infarction (0.6% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.0% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 0.0% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .83). Both intensive care and hospitalization times were significantly longer in the transapical group. Regarding midterm survival, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a tendency toward a less favorable outcome (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.31; P = .17) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.ConclusionsIn this real-world propensity score–matched minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation cohort of intermediate-risk patients, early mortality was not significantly different, whereas the rates of periprocedural complications were different depending on the approach. During follow-up, there was a tendency in the transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation group toward a less favorable survival outcome, although there was no significant difference among the 3 groups.

【 授权许可】

Unknown