Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Outside Randomized Trials

Background: Recent randomized trials including low-risk patients showed positive results for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but patients with non-tricuspid aortic valve (NTAV), severe coronary artery disease (SevCAD), and those requiring concomitant mitral/tricuspid valve (CMTV) or concomitant ascending aorta replacement (CAAR) interventions were excluded.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the presence and impact of the main clinical variables not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR trials (NTAV, SevCAD, and CMTV or CAAR intervention) in a large series of consecutive low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing SAVR.

Methods: Single-center study including consecutive patients with SAS and low surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of <4%) undergoing SAVR. Baseline, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected.

Results: Of 6,772 patients with SAS who underwent SAVR between 2000 and 2019, 5,310 (78.4%) exhibited a low surgical risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 1.94 ± 0.87%). Of these, 2,165 patients (40.8%) had at least 1 of the following: NTAV (n = 1,468, 27.6%), SevCAD (n = 307, 5.8%), CMTV (n = 306, 5.8%), and CAAR (n = 560, 10.5%). The 30-day mortality and stroke rates for the overall low-risk SAS cohort were 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively. The mortality rate was similar in the SevCAD (2.6%) and CAAR (2.1%) groups versus the rest of the cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 3.75, and OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88 to 3.05, respectively), lower in the NTAV group (0.9%; OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.81), and higher in the CMTV group (5.9%; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.51 to 4.5).

Conclusions: In a real-world setting, close to one-half of the low-risk patients with SAS undergoing SAVR exhibited at least 1 major criterion not evaluated in TAVR versus SAVR randomized trials. Clinical outcomes were better than or similar to those predicted by surgical scores in all groups but those patients requiring CMTV intervention. These results may help determine the impact of implementing the results of TAVR-SAVR trials in real practice and may inform future trials in specific groups.