Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Medicare Beneficiaries With Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease.

backgroundAs percutaneous therapeutic options expand, the optimal management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is being questioned between coronary artery bypass grafting with surgical aortic valve replacement (CABG+SAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (PCI+TAVR). This study sought to compare perioperative and longitudinal risk-adjusted outcomes between patients undergoing CABG+SAVR and patients undergoing PCI+TAVR.

methodsUsing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims database, the study evaluated all patient aged 65 years and older with AS and CAD who were undergoing CABG+SAVR or PCI+TAVR (from 2018 to 2022). Comorbidities and frailty were accounted for using validated metrics with doubly robust risk adjustment using inverse probability weighting, multilevel regression, and competing-risk time to event analyses. The primary end point was a 5-year composite of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), valve reintervention, or death.

resultsA total of 37,822 patients formed the study cohort (PCI+TAVR, n = 17,413; CABG+SAVR, n = 20,409). Accounting for age, comorbidities, frailty, and number of vessels revascularized, PCI+TAVR was associated with lower procedural mortality (1.1% vs 3.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.29; P <.001) but higher vascular complications (OR, 6.02; P <.001) and new permanent pacemaker (OR, 1.92; P <.001). However, the longitudinal 5-year primary end point favored CABG+SAVR (20.4% vs 14.2%; OR, 1.44, P <.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a benefit in the use of arterial conduit in CABG+;AVR in patients with single-vessel CAD.

conclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries with severe AS and CAD, CABG+SAVR was associated with higher procedural mortality than PCI+TAVR but lower 5-year risk-adjusted stroke, MI, valve reintervention, and death.