In-hospital outcomes of non-elective transapical transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

7-10-2025

Journal

Scientific reports

Volume

15

Issue

1

DOI

10.1038/s41598-025-07859-w

Keywords

Aortic stenosis; Surgical aortic valve replacement; Transapical; Transcatheter aortic valve replacement; Transfemoral

Abstract

When transfemoral (TF) access is not available during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transapical (TA)-TAVR can be performed. However, TA-TAVR is associated with significantly higher risk, and it is unclear whether it provides more benefit than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in non-elective cases. This study aimed to compare the in-hospital outcomes of non-elective TA-TAVR and SAVR by conducting a population-based analysis using a national registry. Patients who underwent non-elective TA-TAVR and SAVR were selected from National Inpatient Sample from Q4 2015 to 2021. Exclusion criteria included age < 18 years and concomitant procedures. Demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, relevant diagnosis, transfer-in status, and hospital characteristics were matched between patients who underwent TA-TAVR and SAVR using a 1:3 propensity-score matching. In-hospital outcomes were compared. There were 130 and 10,487 patients who underwent TA-TAVR and SAVR, respectively. After the propensity-score matching, all TA-TAVR patients were matched to 341 SAVR patients. TA-TAVR and SAVR patients had comparable in-hospital mortality (7.69% vs. 7.33%, p = 0.85), myocardial infarction (3.85% vs. 4.4%, p = 1.00), stroke (0.77% vs. 1.76%, p = 0.69), respiratory complications (15.38% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.68), cardiogenic shock (14.62% vs. 12.61%, p = 0.55), and pacemaker implantation (10% vs. 7.33%, p = 0.35). However, TA-TAVR patients had lower hemorrhage/hematoma (38.46% vs. 68.33%, p < 0.01), lower transfer out rate (33.08% vs. 44.87%, p = 0.02), and shorter length of stay (p = 0.04). All other in-hospital outcomes were comparable. Among eligible TAVR candidates in non-elective cases and when TF access is not available, both TA-TAVR and SAVR may be equally alternative approaches considering their comparable in-hospital outcomes. Further studies should compare the long-term outcomes between TA-TAVR and SAVR.

Department

School of Medicine and Health Sciences Student Works

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS