Outcomes Following Shock Aortic Valve Replacement: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Approaches

Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Oct;21(10):1313-1318. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.021. Epub 2020 Mar 16.


Objectives: To compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients in shock.

Background: There are minimal data on the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients in shock that undergo TAVR and no data comparing these outcomes to similar patients undergoing SAVR.

Methods: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients having Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-defined urgent or emergent AVR for aortic stenosis with clinical signs and symptoms of shock. Inclusion criteria were based on the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock consensus statement and included: the need for inotropic or vasopressor agents, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy or newly initiated hemodialysis, and/or utilization of mechanical hemodynamic support. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared.

Results: Thirty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (17 TAVR, 20 SAVR). TAVR patients had a higher STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) score of 22.3% compared to 11.8% for SAVR patients (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in baseline echocardiographic results. TAVR procedures required less procedure room time (185.9 min TAVR, 348.5 min SAVR, p < 0.001) and fewer intraoperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions (0.2 units TAVR, 3.4 units SAVR, p < 0.001). TAVR patients also had lower rates of prolonged postoperative ventilation compared to SAVR patients (38.5% TAVR, 75.0% SAVR, p = 0.047). TAVR and SAVR had similar rates of mortality at discharge (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), 30-days (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), and 1-year (8 TAVR, 5 SAVR, p = 0.149).

Conclusions: Despite a higher risk TAVR group, patients in shock undergoing either TAVR or SAVR have similar 30-day mortality. At one year, SAVR patients have a numerically better, though not statistically significant, survival. These findings support the use of TAVR for patients in shock with aortic stenosis.

Keywords: Aortic valve replacement; Emergent; Shock; Transcatheter; Urgent.

MeSH terms

  • Aortic Valve Stenosis* / surgery
  • Aortic Valve* / surgery
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation*
  • Humans
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Factors
  • Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement*
  • Treatment Outcome