Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis

Morbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate.Our aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR.A multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/mAfter matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737).SAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.