Conventional aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with previous cardiac surgery

BackgroundClinical outcomes were compared among patients with previous cardiac surgery undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).MethodsBetween 2007 and 2014 a total of 142 consecutive patients with previous cardiac surgery were treated by TAVI either by the transfemoral (n = 68) or transapical access (n = 74), and 236 patients underwent a surgical redo-AVR. Of these patients, propensity analysis (m:n) matched 62 (group 1, TAVI) and 51 patients (group 2, redo-AVR). A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed. Moreover, mortality was compared between both groups by Cox regression.ResultsBoth groups differed significantly (p < 0.01) in regard to age and preoperative risk scores (EuroSCORE and STS-Score). Thirty-day mortality was 14.5% (9/62) in group 1 and 5.8% (3/51) in group 2 (p = 0.23). Risk-adjusted multivariable analysis revealed only the logistic EuroSCORE to be strongly correlated with 30-day mortality (p = 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed no difference in 30-day mortality between both groups (p = 0.21). Multivariate Cox regression revealed New York Heart Association functional class (p = 0.001), logistic EuroSCORE (p = 0.01), and STS-Score (p = 0.03) to be strongly associated with overall mortality. Moreover, evaluating overall mortality, Cox regression showed no difference between both groups (p = 0.36).ConclusionsThe present study shows that in patients with cardiac reoperation, TAVI comes with similar outcomes when compared to surgical AVR. On the other hand, conventional redo-AVR is still a valuable and safe treatment option.