Contemporary short-term outcomes of surgery for aortic stenosis: transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement

Objectives This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacements (TAVR and SAVR) in high-, intermediate-, and low-preoperative risk patients. Methods A total of 454 patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR were included. Patients were categorized into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk according to the Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score and clinical outcomes were compared between TAVR and SAVR groups. Results TAVR was less invasive, with less bleeding and transfusion ( p < 0.001), less frequent new-onset atrial fibrillation ( p < 0.001), and shorter intensive care unit stay ( p < 0.001). Furthermore, transcatheter valves performed better than surgical valves, with lower peak velocity ( p = 0.003) and pressure gradient ( p < 0.001) and higher effective orifice area index ( p < 0.001). The clinical outcomes of TAVR were comparable to or even superior to those of SAVR in high- and intermediate-risk patients. In low-risk patients, the 1- and 2-year mortality rates were 6.3% and 12.1%, respectively, in the TAVR group and 0% and 0.9%, respectively, in the SAVR group ( p < 0.001). Mild or greater paravalvular leakage was a risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio 35.78; p < 0.001). Conclusions TAVR was superior to SAVR in the sense of less invasiveness and valvular function. However, the indication of TAVR in low-risk patients should be carefully discussed, because paravalvular leakage was a risk factor for short-term mortality.