Search

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains the preferred strategy for high-risk or elderly individuals with aortic valve (AV) stenosis who are not considered to be optimal surgical candidates. Recent evidence suggests that low-risk patients may benefit from TAVI as well. The current study evaluates midterm survival in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgical AV replacement (SAVR) versus TAVI. The Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry (AVALON) compared isolated elective transfemoral TAVI or SAVR with sternotomy or minimally invasive approach in low-risk individuals performed between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score matching was conducted to determine SAVR controls for TAVI group in a 1-to-3 ratio with 0.2 caliper. A total of 2393 patients undergoing elective surgery (1765 SAVR and 629 TAVI) with median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) score 1.81 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.36 to 2.53]) were initially included. Median follow-up was 2.72 years (IQR, 1.32-4.08; max 6.0). Propensity score matching returned 329 TAVI cases and 593 SAVR controls. Thirty-day mortality was 11 out of 329 (3.32%) in TAVI and 18 out of 593 (3.03%) in SAVR (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.52-2.37; P =.801) groups, respectively. At 2 years, survival curves began to diverge in favor of SAVR, which was associated with 30% lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.496-0.997; P =.048). Our data did not demonstrate a survival difference between TAVI and SAVR during the first 2 postprocedure years. After that time, SAVR is associated with improved survival. Extended observations from randomized trials in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgery are warranted to confirm these findings and draw definitive conclusions. [Display omitted] [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]