Minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk octogenarians : Observational, retrospective and single-center study.

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare short-term and mid-term outcomes in low-risk octogenarian population treated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (tf-TAVI) or minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) for severe aortic stenosis.

methodsIn this single-center, retrospective cohort study we gathered data on low-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score < 4%) octogenarians before and after tf-TAVI and mini-AVR performed between January 2013 and May 2019; follow-up was completed in May 2022. Short-term outcomes were hospital length of stay, in-hospital all-cause mortality and other major postoperative outcomes. Mid-term clinical outcomes were 1‑year and 3‑year all-cause mortality. Propensity score-based matching was performed.

resultsIn total 106 patients were matched, resulting in 53 pairs. In-hospital complications were similar between the matched groups of patients with the exception of mild and moderate paravalvular leak (mini-AVR vs. tf-TAVI: mild PVL: 3.8% vs. 45.3%, p < 0.001; moderate PVL: 0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.4952) and of postprocedural acute kidney injury that was more frequent in mini-AVR group (mini-AVR vs. tf-TAVI: 22.6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.023). Hospital length of stay (p = 0.239) and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.495) did not differ between groups. The 1-year and 3‑year all-cause mortality Kaplan-Meier estimates were similar between mini-AVR and tf-TAVI.

conclusionIn the present study on low-risk octogenarians, transfemoral TAVI and minimally invasive AVR showed comparable short-term and mid-term results. Both procedures are deemed safe and effective. Larger RCTs will be required to determine which low-risk patients will benefit most from TAVI.