Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasingly considered as a viable alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients. Long-term results, however, are still scarce and medical community hesitates in enlarging indications to lower-risk patients. Moreover, available devices are expensive and a strict potential candidate selection is necessary.
From April 2008 to August 2012, a total of 212 patients, originally referred for percutaneous treatment, were thoroughly evaluated by the aortic team of our department in order to choose the optimal procedure. Of them, 55 patients (35 women; 20 men) were considered as still acceptable candidates for conventional AVR.
Mean age was 80.7 ± 4.7 years; mean additive and logistic Euroscore I were 9.7 ± 1.8 and 17.8 ± 9.5%, respectively. Mean Euroscore II was 7.9 ± 5.5%. Mean New York Heart Association class was 2.9 ± 0.5. The majority of patients (87.2%) presented a geriatric frailty score of 0–1. Four patients showed a heavily calcified ascending aorta, and five patients (9%) underwent reoperations. Hospital mortality was 10.9% (six patients). Mean follow-up was 535.9 ± 407.4 days (range: 6–1365 days). Six other patients died during this period for a mean survival of 74.4 ± 6.9% at 2 years. Mean New York Heart Association class at 1 year was 1.25 ± 0.5 (P < 0.01 vs. preoperative value).
AVR should be indicated with caution in high-risk patients originally referred for TAVI. Despite medium-term results being good, with excellent functional status, hospital mortality is not negligible.
aDepartments of Cardiac Surgery
dCardiology, Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy
Correspondence to Alessandro D’Alfonso, MD, PhD, Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Via Conca 71, 60021 Ancona (AN), Italy Tel: +0039 071 5965353; fax: +0039 071 5965301; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received 11 March, 2013
Revised 3 July, 2013
Accepted 10 April, 2014