Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the Outcomes between Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged above 80

  • Lee, Jeong-Woo (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jihoon (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Sung-Ho (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Chung, Cheol Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jae Won (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.08.29
  • Accepted : 2016.10.17
  • Published : 2017.08.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been suggested as a less invasive treatment for high-risk patients with aortic valve disease. I n this study, we compared the outcomes of conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and TAVR in elderly patients aged over 80. Methods: A total of 108 patients aged 80 years or older who underwent isolated AVR (n=35) or TAVR (n=73) from 2010 through 2015 at Asan Medical Center were identified. Early and late clinical outcomes, including echocardiographic findings, were evaluated in both groups. The mean follow-up duration was $766.4{\pm}528.7days$ in the AVR group and $755.2{\pm}546.6days$ in the TAVR group, and the average timing of the last follow-up echocardiography was at $492.6{\pm}512.5days$ in the AVR group and $515.7{\pm}526.8days$ in the TAVR group. Results: The overall early mortality was 2.8% (0 of 35, 0% in the AVR group vs. 3 of 73, 4.1% in the TAVR group). Permanent pacemaker insertion was significantly more common in the TAVR group (p=0.010). Renal failure requiring dialysis and new-onset atrial fibrillation was more frequent and the length of hospital stay was longer in the AVR group; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. In the TAVR group, 14 patients (19.2%) were rehospitalized due to cardiac problems, and 13 patients (17.8%) had developed significant paravalvular leakage by the time of the last follow-up echocardiography. Conclusion: TAVR could be a good alternative to conventional surgical AVR in elderly patients. However, TAVR has several shortcomings, such as frequent significant paravalvular leakage or readmission, which should be considered in decision-making.

Keywords

References

  1. Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet 2009;373:956-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60211-7
  2. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics: 2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011;123:e18-209. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182009701
  3. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:e57-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536
  4. Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J, et al. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation 1982;66:1105-10. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.66.5.1105
  5. Lund O. Preoperative risk evaluation and stratification of long-term survival after valve replacement for aortic stenosis: reasons for earlier operative intervention. Circulation 1990;82:124-39. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.82.1.124
  6. O'Brien SM, Shahian DM, Filardo G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2--isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88(1 Suppl):S23-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.05.056
  7. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187-98. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1103510
  8. Yu WS, Chang BC, Joo HC, Ko YG, Lee S. Comparison of early clinical results of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic high risk severe aortic stenosis patients. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;46:346-52. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2013.46.5.346
  9. Yamane K, Hirose H, Youdelman BA, Bogar LJ, Diehl JT. Conventional aortic valve replacement for elderly patients in the current era. Circ J 2011;75:2692-8. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-11-0541
  10. Vasques F, Messori A, Lucenteforte E, Biancari F. Immediate and late outcome of patients aged 80 years and older undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 48 studies. Am Heart J 2012;163:477-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2011.12.005
  11. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1609-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1514616
  12. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597-607. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008232
  13. Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, et al. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1705-15. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1114705
  14. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1686-95. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1200384

Cited by

  1. Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Elderly Patients (75 Years or Older) vol.51, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2018.51.5.322