Comparison of Survival of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients Without Coronary Artery Disease.

Increasing data support transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as a valid option over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS) also in patients with low operative risk. However, limited data exist on the outcome of TAVI and SAVR in low-risk patients without coronary artery disease (CAD). The Finn-Valve registry included data on 6463 patients who underwent TAVI or SAVR with bio-prosthesis between 2008 and 2017. Herein, we evaluated the outcome of low operative risk as defined by STS-PROM score <3% and absence of CAD, previous stroke and other relevant co-morbidities. Only patients who underwent TAVI with third-generation prostheses and SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease or Trifecta prostheses were included in this analysis. The primary endpoints were 30-day and 3-year all-cause mortality. Overall, 1,006 patients (175 TAVI patients and 831 SAVR patients) met the inclusion criteria of this analysis. Propensity score matching resulted in 140 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 2.1% in both TAVI and SAVR cohorts (p = 1.00) and 3-year mortality was 17.0% after TAVI and 14.6% after SAVR (p = 0.805). Lower rates of bleeding and atrial fibrillation, and shorter hospital stay were observed after TAVI. The need of new permanent pacemaker implantation and the incidence of early stroke did not differ between groups. In conclusion, TAVI using third-generation prostheses achieved similar early and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients without CAD. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.