Comparison of the Hemodynamic Performance of Percutaneous and Surgical Bioprostheses for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

Objectives This study was undertaken to compare the hemodynamic performance of a percutaneous bioprosthesis to that of surgically implanted (stented and stentless) bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Methods Fifty patients who underwent percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) with the Cribier-Edwards or Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California) were matched 1: 1 for sex, aortic annulus diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, body surface area, and body mass index, with 2 groups of 50 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a stented valve (Edwards Perimount Magna [SAVR-ST group]), or a stentless valve (Medtronic Freestyle, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota [SAVR-SL group]). Doppler echocardiographic data were prospectively obtained before the intervention, at discharge, and at 6- to 12-month follow-up. Results Mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge was lower (p < 0.001) in the PAVI group (10 +/- 4 mm Hg) compared with the SAVR-ST (13 +/- 5 mm Hg) and SAVR-SL (14 +/- 6 mm Hg) groups. Aortic regurgitation (AR) occurred more frequently in the PAVI group (mild: 42%, moderate: 8%) compared with the SAVR-ST (mild: 10%, moderate: 0%) and SAVR-SL (mild: 12%, moderate: 0%) groups (p < 0.0001). At follow-up, the mean gradient in the PAVI group remained lower (p < 0.001) than that of the SAVR-ST group, but was similar to that of the SAVR-SL group. The incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower (p = 0.007) in the PAVI group (6%) compared with the SAVR-ST (28%) and SAVR-SL (20%) groups. However, the incidence of AR remained higher (p < 0.0001) in the PAVI group compared with the 2 other groups. Conclusions PAVI provided superior hemodynamic performance compared with the surgical bioprostheses in terms of transprosthetic gradient and prevention of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, but was associated with a higher incidence of AR. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 1883-91) (C) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation