Percutaneous versus Surgical Intervention for Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Aortic stenosis is a disease that is increasing in prevalence and manifests as decreased cardiac output, which if left untreated can result in heart failure and ultimately death. It is primarily a disease of the elderly who often have multiple comorbidities. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve therapies has changed the way we treat these conditions. However, long-term results of these therapies remain uncertain. Recently, there has been an increasing number of studies examining the role of both surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We therefore performed a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators searched papers published between January 1, 2007, and to date using the following terms: “aortic valve stenosis,” “aortic valve operation,” and “transcatheter aortic valve therapy.” Both strategies in aortic stenosis treatment highlighted specific indications alongside the pitfalls such as structural valve degeneration and valve thrombosis which have a bearing on clinical outcomes. We propose some recommendations to help clinicians in the decision-making process as technological improvements make both surgical and transcatheter therapies viable options for patients with aortic stenosis. Finally, we assess the role of finite element analysis in patient selection for aortic valve replacement. THVT and AVR-S are both useful tools in the armamentarium against aortic stenosis. The decision between the two treatment strategies should be best guided by a strong robust evidence base, ideally with a long-term follow-up. This is best performed by the heart team with the patient as the center of the discussion.

The Role of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Feasibility Analysis

“…Patients who develop AKI following valve replacement have a significantly higher length of inpatient stay and higher 30-day and one-year mortality [ 51 , 52 ]. PARTNER Trials revealed no significant difference in the risk of development of AKI following SAVR or TAVR [ 53 ]. Similar results were reported by Thongprayoon et al [ 54 ].…”