Comparative analysis of early postoperative results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

. Aim: The choice of aortic valve stenosis correction method is determined by a number of clinical and technical parameters. The task was to compare early postoperative outcomes in patients after correction of aortic valve stenosis using TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the medical records of adult patients (18 years of age and older) who had transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis at the State Institution "Heart Institute of the Ministry of Health" in the period from 2018 to 2022.

RESULTS

Results: In 47 (47.5%) cases, TAVI was performed and in 52 (52.5%) cases, SAVR with a biological prosthesis was performed. Patients who underwent TAVI were significantly older (p=0.002) and had a higher EuroSCORE II operative risk score (p<0.001). In patients with TAVI, larger diameter aortic valve prostheses were significantly more often used compared with the SAVR group with biological prosthesis (27.5±2.74 vs. 22.5±1.84, p<0.001). The early postoperative period in patients with TAVI was characterized by an 11.4% (p=0.046) and 15.4% (p=0.006). The length of stay in the ICU (p=0.024), as well as the duration of hospitalization in general (p=0.005), was also significantly lower in patients with TAVI compared with patients with biological prosthesis SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Despite the higher surgical risk of surgery according to EuroSCORE II, TAVI was characterized by a lower incidence of postoperative complications, with shorter duration of stay in ICU and hospitalization in general in comparison with patients undergoing SAVR with a biological prosthesis.

[Therapeutic revolution in the treatment of aortic stenosis : transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI )]

Eighteen years after the birth of the concept, TAVI (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) has established itself as the treatment of choice for symptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at high surgical risk. Unlike surgical prosthesis, the benefit of which has been validated in observational studies, indications for TAVI are now based on the results of large randomized trials. The TAVI revolution continues today with the miniaturization of the equipment, the development of new closure systems, the availability of a wider range of prosthesis sizes and the growing experience of operators, all contributing to the widening of indications to lower risk patients.

[Transcatheter aortic valve replacement : from a concept to a medical revolution]

Since the first transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2002, the paradigm for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis has changed. In the recent past, medical therapy with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty was the only option for inoperable patients but now, TAVI has become the treatment of choice for these patients and the preferred alternative for high-risk operable patients. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) currently remains the gold standard for patients at low operative risk. As randomized trials have demonstrated comparable (or better results with TAVI) between TAVI and SAVR in the high-risk population, there is now a clear trend towards performing TAVI even in intermediate-risk. Nevertheless, there are still questions regarding TAVI involving paravalvular leak, stroke, pacemaker requirements, and durability, which remain to be more definitively answered before TAVI can routinely be performed in lower risk and younger population. Improvements in patient selection, multimodal imaging, and third generation devices have significantly decreased the incidence of TAVI complications. A role for post-procedure antithrombotic or anticoagulant management remains unanswered. Waiting for current studies to provide us with clear answers to these questions, it is the Heart Team's task to determine the optimal treatment for each patient based on risk scores, frailty metrics, comorbidities, patient's preference, and potential for improvement in quality of life.