Search

Background This single-center retrospective study assessed the variation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation and its effect on survival. We also evaluated the effect of sheath diameter on LVEF. Methods We analyzed data of all consecutive patients who underwent transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) device (and its evolutions) between 2009 and 2015. We analyzed the difference between preoperative LVEF and LVEF at discharge (ΔEF = LVEFpost-op – LVEFpre-op) and considered its interquartile range (±5%) as the cutoff. Patients were divided in three groups: (1) improved LVEF (ΔEF ≥ +5%); (2) unchanged LVEF (ΔEF –5% to +5%), and (3) worsened LVEF (ΔEF ≤ –5%). Survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and logistic regression multivariable analysis was used to determine independent predictors of LVEF improvement. Results Data of 122 patients were analyzed. Patients in the three groups were distributed as follows: (group 1) 27 patients (22.1%), (group 2) 69 (56.6%), and (group 3) 26 (21.3%). The mean ΔEF was 12.7% ± 4.7% in group 1 and –10.8% ± 3.9% in group 3. The ΔEF was more likely to improve in patients with preoperative LVEF of less than 0.35 ( p = 0.014). There were no significant differences in survival ( p = 0.41), rehospitalization ( p = 0.472), and New York Heart Association Functional Classification ( p = 0.307) among the groups. The use of the smallest available sheath (18F) was not associated with a significant change of ΔEF. Conclusions LVEF worsened in a small number of patients after transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but this change was not associated with worse postoperative outcomes. Patients with a low LVEF showed better improvement. The progressive reduction of sheath diameter does not have a significant effect on LVEF changes.

Objective: Although surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice for patients with aortic valve stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) have shown good results. The aim of our multicenter, propensity-matched study was to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of surgical SAVR, transapical TAVR (TA-TAVR), and SU-AVR. Methods: We analyzed data from 566 TA-TAVR, 349 SAVR, and 38 SU-AVR patients treated from January 2009 to March 2012. We used a propensity-matching strategy to compare on-pump (SAVR, SU-AVR) and off-pump (TA-TAVR) surgical techniques. The outcomes were analyzed using multivariate weighted logistic regression or multinomial logistic analysis. Results: In the matched cohorts, the 30-day overall mortality was significantly lower after SAVR than TA-TAVR (7% vs 1.8%, P = .026), with no differences in mortality between SU-AVR and TA-TAVR. Multivariate analysis showed SU-AVR to have a protective effect, although not statistically significant, against aortic regurgitation, pacemaker implantation, and renal replacement therapy compared with TA-TAVR. Compared with TA-TAVR, SAVR demonstrated significant protection against aortic regurgitation (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001) and a trend toward protection against death, pacemaker implantation, and myocardial infarction. The mean transaortic gradient was 10.3 +/- 4.4 mm Hg, 11 +/- 3.4 mm Hg, and 16.5 +/- 5.8 mm Hg in the TA-TAVR, SU-AVR, and SAVR patients, respectively. Conclusions: SAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality than TA-TAVR. SAVR was also associated with a lower risk of postoperative aortic regurgitation compared with TA-TAVR. We did not find other significant differences in outcomes among matched patients treated with SAVR, SU-AVR, and TA-TAVR.