Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis in Patients With “Porcelain” Aorta

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with porcelain aorta is considered a high-risk procedure. Hence, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is emerging as the intervention of choice. However, there is a paucity of data directly comparing TAVI with SAVR in patients with porcelain aorta. We compared outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in high-risk patients with porcelain between March 2012 and June 2015. The TAVI group included 54 patients, whereas 130 SAVR patients with porcelain aorta were identified (operated on between 2004 and 2015). Both groups were matched 1:1 based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score with a 0.5% a priori caliper, resulting in 52 matched pairs. The mean STS-PROM was 7.3 ± 3.9 for both groups (p = 0.98), whereas mean age was 77.5 years for TAVI and 78.8 years for SAVR (p = 0.46). Compared with SAVR, TAVI patients had lower operative mortality (3.8% vs 17.3%; p = 0.052), significantly shorter median intensive care unit (40 vs 107 hours; p < 0.001) and hospital (5 vs. 7 days; p < 0.001) length of stay (LOS), but similar postoperative stroke rates (7.7% vs 11.5%; p = 0.74). One-year unadjusted survival was 81.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.8% to 93.5%) in the TAVI group versus 71.2% (95% CI: 61.0% to 85.1%) in the SAVR group, p = 0.093. Cox proportional hazard modeling identified preoperative chronic kidney disease (hazard ratio: 2.63 [95% CI: 1.03 to 6.70]; p = 0.043) and SAVR (hazard ratio: 2.641 [95% CI: 1.07 to 6.51]; p = 0.035) as significant predictors for decreased survival. Overall, TAVI was associated with reduced operative mortality, increased survival, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay compared with SAVR in patients with porcelain aorta. This study demonstrates that TAVI is a safe intervention in this high-risk population.