Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients with Aortic Stenosis.
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are well established treatment options for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) were excluded from pivotal randomized controlled trials of TAVR vs SAVR. We queried the 2016 to 2019 National Inpatient Sample to identify adult hospitalizations with HCM who underwent SAVR or TAVR for severe AS. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiac arrest, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), cardiac tamponade, bleeding requiring transfusion, stroke/transient ischemic attack, acute kidney injury (AKI), and resource utilization (length of stay [LOS], hospital costs, and discharge to facility). Of 1245 HCM hospitalizations with severe AS, 595(47.8%) underwent TAVR and 650 (52.2%) underwent SAVR. In-hospital mortality rate was lower in the TAVR group. Cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, pressor use, new PPM, and cardiac tamponade were not significantly different between the 2 groups. When compared to SAVR, TAVR was associated with lower rates of bleeding requiring transfusion, vascular complications, AKI, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, TAVR was associated with a shorter hospital stay, fewer facility discharges, but comparable hospital costs. Our findings indicate that TAVR is associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality, certain peri-procedural complications, shorter hospital stay, and fewer facility discharges in HCM patients with isolated AS compared to SAVR. Further studies are needed to assess the mid- and long-term outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR in HCM patients with AS.
Current problems in cardiology
Mhanna, M., Minhas, A., Ariss, R., Ahuja, K. R., Mostafa, A., Nazir, S., & Sheikh, M. (2023). Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients with Aortic Stenosis.. Current problems in cardiology, 48 (8), 101180-101180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101180