Clinical trends in surgical, minimally invasive and transcatheter aortic valve replacement†.

Research paper by Tom C TC Nguyen, Matthew D MD Terwelp, Vinod H VH Thourani, Yelin Y Zhao, Nidal N Ganim, Carson C Hoffmann, Monica M Justo, Anthony L AL Estrera, Richard W RW Smalling, Prakash P Balan, Joseph J Lamelas

Indexed on: 23 Mar '17Published on: 23 Mar '17Published in: European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery


Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) have emerged as alternatives to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via traditional sternotomy. However, their effect on clinical practice remains unclear. The study's objective is to describe clinical trends between TAVR, MIAVR and SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).This retrospective observational study analyzed trends in isolated severe aortic valve replacement (AVR) among three high volume TAVR, MIAVR and SAVR centres in the United States. The cohort included 2571 patients from 2011 through 2014 undergoing SAVR ( n  = 842), MIAVR ( n  = 699) and TAVR ( n  = 1030) further stratified into transapical (TA-TAVR) and trans-femoral (TF-TAVR).Total AVR volume increased +107% with increases in TF-TAVR (+595%) and MIAVR (+57%). However, SAVR (-15%) and TA-TAVR (-49%) decreased from 2013 to 2014. In the final year, risk stratification by age ≥ 80, redo AVR, patients receiving dialysis and STS score >8% revealed increases in TF-TAVR and MIAVR, while SAVR decreased for all groups.TF-TAVR and MIAVR increased while SAVR and TA-TAVR trended down in the latter periods, which underscore a paradigm shift in the treatment of severe AS and the importance of surgeon adoption of TF-TAVR and MIAVR techniques. As the demand for minimally invasive modalities increases, further studies comparing MIAVR versus TF-TAVR in low and intermediate risk patients are warranted.

More like this: