Share this page on LinkedIn
Share This Page on Google+
Share This Page on Twitter
tell someone about this page print this page
You are here: Contents > 2017 > Volume 26 Number 3 May 2017 > AORTIC VALVE DISEASE > Sutureless versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Sutureless versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Giuseppe Santarpino1,5, Ferdinand Vogt1, Steffen Pfeiffer1, Angelo M. Dell’Aquila2, Jürgen Jessl3, Federica Cuomo4, Che von Wardenburg1, Theodor Fischlein1, Matthias Pauschinger3, Johannes Schwab3

1Department of Cardiac Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany
2Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital, Münster, Germany
3Department of Cardiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany
4Nuremberg Medical School, Nuremberg, Germany
5Electronic correspondence: g.santarpino@libero.it

Background and aim of the study: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), especially via the transfemoral (TF) route, is increasingly performed in patients considered in the ‘gray zone’ between TAVI and surgery. However, the best treatment option in this patient population remains to be established.

Methods: Since 2010, a total of 923 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 538) or sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 385) at the authors’ institutions. Among these patients, 79 treated with TF-TAVI were compared with 79 propensity score-matched patients who had undergone elective isolated AVR with the sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis.

Results: In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between patients who underwent sutureless AVR or TF-TAVI (none versus three; 3.8%; p = 0.123). Similarly, postoperative complications were comparable between groups. Atrioventricular block requiring postoperative pacemaker implantation occurred in seven patients (9.2%) of the sutureless group and in eight patients (11.1%) of the


TF-TAVI group (p = 0.455). The use of blood products varied between groups in terms of red blood cell transfusions (1.7 ± 2 versus 0.3 ± 0.9 units for the sutureless group versus TF-TAVI group; p <0.001). Paravalvular leakage at discharge was present in three patients (3.8%) in the sutureless group and in 26 patients (32.9%) in the TF-TAVI group (p <0.001). The mean follow up was longer for sutureless AVR (36 ± 21 versus 27 ± 20 months; p = 0.003). Survival rates were 97.5% and 84.8% in the sutureless and TF-TAVI groups, respectively (p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Both, TF-TAVI and sutureless AVR are well-standardized, safe and effective procedures. TF-TAVI seems to be a valuable alternative to surgical AVR for frail patients, reducing the need for perioperative blood transfusion. In contrast, in patients with a favorable long-term survival outcome, minimally invasive AVR remains the procedure of choice as it is associated with better long-term results.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2017;26:255-261


Sutureless versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Click the above hyperlink to view the article, right click (Ctrl click on a Mac) to open in a new browser window or tab.

Purchase this Article

Please click the button below to purchase this article. Single article purchases are provided at $50.00 per article. Upon clicking the button below, single article user account subscription details are requested and, upon successful payment, a single article user account is created. Single articles are availble in your account for seven days after purchase.