Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Current evidence supports equipoise between surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR) for the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The optimal interventional management for lower-risk patients is controversial. Minimally invasive robotic AVR (RAVR) was developed as a potential option.

METHODS

A total of 605 consecutive patients (2017-2023) managed by the identical structural heart team, 174 RAVR and 431 TAVR, were propensity matched and evaluated for in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 288 low- to intermediate-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality <8%) patients matched in 2 well-balanced groups (144 RAVR vs 144 TAVR). In-hospital and 30-day mortality were similar. There were 2 conversions to sternotomy in the TAVR group (cardiac arrest and coronary occlusion) and none in the RAVR group. Eight RAVR patients (5.6%) required reoperation for hemothorax evacuation. TAVR was associated with higher new pacemaker (11 vs 3, P = .028) and major vascular complications (13 vs 0, P < .0001), and a higher postprocedural stroke trend (6 vs 1, P = .056). There was no difference in 30-day transfusions, atrial fibrillation, or 1-year mean valve gradients. However, 1-year mortality (12.5% vs 1.4%, P < .0001) and paravalvular leak greater than mild (32.6% vs 2.3%, P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

These data highlight lower pacemaker and vascular complications, as well as less 1-year paravalvular leak and mortality with RAVR compared with TAVR. RAVR may provide a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to TAVR for low- and intermediate-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic AS.