Propensity-matched comparison of clinical outcomes after transaortic versus transfemoral aortic valve replacement

Abstract

Aims: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of transaortic (TAo-AVR) and transfemoral (TF-AVR) transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Methods and results: Between January 2012 and December 2015, consecutive TAo-AVR and TF-AVR cases were compared using a propensity score-matching analysis. Primary endpoints were 30-day and one-year mortality; 644 TAVR patients were included (163 TAo-AVR and 481 TF-AVR). Peripheral artery disease (31.9% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and coronary artery disease (50.0% vs. 39.3%, p=0.009) were more frequent in TAo-AVR patients. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were not different (6.9% vs. 6.5%, p=0.243). Propensity matching identified 124 well-matched patient pairs. Thirty-day and one-year mortality rates were similar in the overall population of TAo-AVR and TF-AVR patients (7.3% vs 7.6%, p=0.8 and 18.4% vs. 15.8%, p=0.6, respectively), and in the matched cohort (7.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.8 and 15.3% vs. 16.1%, p=0.8, respectively). Transaortic access was associated with higher risk of new onset of atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (24.4% vs. 9.6%, p=0.012), life-threatening bleedings (6.5% vs. 0.8%, p=0.036) and transfusion (41% vs. 16.7%, p<0.001).

Conclusions: No significant differences were observed between the respective 30-day and one-year mortality rates of TAo-AVR and TF-AVR patients. The transaortic approach thus constitutes a valid alternative to TF-AVR, but is associated with higher rates of NOAF, bleedings, and transfusion.