Clin Res Cardiol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02087-y

Use of transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation in Germany in 2018–2020
V. Oettinger1, I. Hilgendorf1, P. Stachon1, K. Kaier2, A. Heidenreich1, M. Zehender1, D. Westermann1, C. von zur Mühlen1, für die Studiengruppe: CeBAC
1Universitäts-Herzzentrum, Klinik für Kardiologie und Angiologie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau; 2Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau;

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is still not used regularly in pure aortic regurgitation. Due to its rapid development, more research on current data is crucial.
Methods: Using German national records, all isolated surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) or TAVR for pure aortic regurgitation in 2018-2020 were identified.
Results: Of 4,861 procedures, there were 4,025 SAVR and 836 TAVR. Patients receiving TAVR were noticeably older and had a higher logistic EuroSCORE as well as more pre-existing conditions. While unadjusted in-hospital mortality was slightly worse for transapical TAVR compared to SAVR (6.00% vs 5.71%), transfemoral TAVR achieves better results, with self-expanding transfemoral TAVR being associated with a significantly lower in-hospital mortality than balloon-expandable transfemoral TAVR (2.41% vs 5.17%; p=0.039). After risk adjustment, in-hospital mortality was significantly in favor of both balloon-expandable and self-expanding transfemoral TAVR vs SAVR (balloon-expandable: adjusted OR=0.50 [95% CI 0.27; 0.94], p=0.031; self-expanding: OR=0.20 [0.10; 0.41], p<0.001). Also in-hospital complication rates (stroke, major bleeding, delirium, mechanical ventilation >48h) were significantly better in TAVR. Furthermore, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in TAVR than SAVR (transapical: adjusted Coefficient (Coeff)=-4.75d [-7.05d; -2.46d], p<0.001; balloon-expandable: Coeff=-6.88d [-9.06d; -4.69d], p<0.001; self-expanding: Coeff=-7.22 [-8.95; -5.49], p<0.001). Reimbursement showed mixed results.
Conclusion: In treatment of aortic regurgitation, TAVR is a feasible alternative for SAVR in selected patients, with overall lower in-hospital mortality and complication rates, particularly in favor of self-expanding transfemoral TAVR.

Figure: Standardized rates of in-hospital outcomes of patients with pure aortic regurgitation in 2018–2020

BE: balloon-expandable; CI: confidence interval; SAVR: surgical aortic valve replacement; SE: self-expanding; TA: transapical; TAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TF: transfemoral.

Values of stroke in TA-TAVR could not be calculated due to a stroke rate of 0.00% in TA-TAVR.

https://dgk.org/kongress_programme/ht2022/aPP257.html