Comparison of Outcomes and Discharge Location After Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BackgroundPublished trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, differences in morbidity and discharge location between the 2 procedures are less thoroughly characterized.MethodsFrom January 1, 2006 to January 7, 2020, 1059 patients with severe aortic stenosis after CABG underwent either SAVR (n = 315/30%), transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR) (n = 575/54%), or alternative access TAVR (n = 169/16%) at a single, tertiary care, academic institution. Propensity-weighted matching was used to compare morbidity, mortality, length of postprocedure stay, and nonhome discharge between TF-TAVR (effective n = 163) and SAVR (effective n = 163) groups.ResultsAmong propensity-weighted groups, the TF-TAVR group experienced fewer transfusions than the SAVR group (effective n = 16 [9.5%] vs. 132 [81%]; p < 0 .0001), less new-onset atrial fibrillation (effective n = 5.1 [3.1%] vs. 43 [27%]; p = 0.009), and less prolonged mechanical ventilation >24 ​hours (effective n = 0.41 [0.25%] vs. 30 [18%]; p <0.0001). Permanent pacemaker implant was 9.3% (effective n = 13) after TF-TAVR vs. 5.5% (effective n = 7.9; p = 0.2) after SAVR, stroke 0.41% (effective n = 0.67) vs. 2.1% (effective n = 3.5; p = 0.2), and operative mortality 0.5% (effective n = 0.8) vs. 1.7% (effective n = 2.8; p = 0.8). The TF-TAVR group had shorter postprocedure lengths of stay (2.0 vs. 7.6 days; p < 0.0001). Discharge home was more common after TF-TAVR than SAVR (effective n = 156 [95%] vs. 118 [73%]; p = 0.01).ConclusionsFor patients developing severe aortic stenosis after CABG, TF-TAVR rather than SAVR should be strongly considered because of lower morbidity, shorter length of stay, and greater likelihood of home discharge.