Aortic and mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched patients

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have superior outcomes compared with aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR). Considering significant MR is frequently addressed with a mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR) at the time of open aortic valve replacement, this study compares TAVR and AVR/MVR in propensity-matched pairs of patients with significant MR.

Methods: We evaluated all patients presenting with moderate or greater MR undergoing either TAVR or AVR/MVR at a single institution from 2002 to 2012. Patients who underwent other cardiac operations or had preoperative endocarditis were excluded. Of 306 patients in the AVR/MVR group and 147 patients in the TAVR group, propensity analysis matched 40 pairs of patients. Standard univariate, logistic regression, and propensity matching techniques were used.

Results: There was no significant difference between TAVR patients and AVR/MVR patients, respectively, in preoperative average age (76 ± 7.4 versus 78 ± 6.9 years, p = 0.68), ejection fraction (53 ± 15 versus 51 ± 17, p = 0.68), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (9.9 ± 3.1 versus 9.3 ± 3.4, p = 0.61), or 30-day mortality (7.5% versus 2.5%, p = 0.6). Postoperative MR was significantly improved for both TAVR and AVR/MVR, but AVR/MVR showed significantly greater improvement (-2.33 ± 1.23 versus -0.88 ± 0.79, p < 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, midterm survival was significantly better in the AVR/MVR group compared with the TAVR group (log rank p = 0.04).

Conclusions: In a propensity-matched analysis of patients with significant MR, AVR/MVR and TAVR had equivalent perioperative outcomes, but AVR/MVR had more reduction in MR and may have superior midterm survival when compared with TAVR among 30-day survivors.