Propensity matched comparison of TAVI and SAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease : a subgroup analysis from the German Aortic Valve Registry

Abstract

Objective We compared TAVI vs. SAVR in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (eGFR 15–60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ) for whom both procedures could possibly be considered (age ≤ 80 years, STS-score 4–8).

Background According to both ACC/AHA and ESC/EACTS recent guidelines, aortic stenosis may be treated with either transcatheter (TAVI) or surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement in a subgroup of patients. A shared therapeutic decision is made by a heart team based on individual factors, including chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods Data from the large nationwide German Aortic Valve Registry were used. A propensity score method was used to select 704 TAVI and 374 SAVR matched patients. Primary endpoint was 1-year survival. Secondary endpoints were clinical complications, including pacemaker implantation, vascular complications, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and the need for new-onset dialysis.

Results One-year survival was similar (HR [95% CI] for TAVI 1.271 [0.795, 2.031], p  = 0.316), with no divergence in Kaplan–Meier curves. In spite of post-procedural short-term survival being numerically higher for TAVI patients and 1-year survival being numerically higher for SAVR patients, such differences did not reach statistical significance (96.4% vs. 94.2%, p  = 0.199, and 86.2% vs. 81.2%, p  = 0.316, respectively). In weighted analyses, pacemaker implantation, vascular complications, and were significantly more common with TAVI; whereas myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion, and longer ICU-stay and overall hospitalization were higher with SAVR. Temporary dialysis was more common with SAVR ( p  < 0.0001); however, a probable need for chronic dialysis was rare and similar in both groups.

Conclusion Both TAVI and SAVR led to comparable and excellent results in patients with moderate-to-severe CKD in an intermediate-risk population of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis for whom both therapies could possibly be considered.