Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Results differ between transaortic and open surgical aortic valve replacement in women
Francesco Onorati1, Paola D'Errigo2, Marco Barbanti3
1Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Verona Medical School, Verona, Italy.
Background:
Despite the well-known impact of female sex on outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR), few studies investigated its role after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Methods:
After propensity-matching for age, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, left ventricular function and associated cardiac diseases, hospital mortality, and procedure-related morbidities of 388 women (194 TAVR versus 194 sAVR)-of 5,231 patients enrolled in 70 centers participating in this prospective multicenter national registry-were analyzed at a central management unit of the Italian National Institute of Health.
Results:
Although hospital mortality was comparable (4.1% TAVR versus 3.1% sAVR; p = 0.177), women undergoing sAVR showed a higher rate of transfusion (63.9% versus 37.1% TAVR; p = 0.0001); higher number of transfusions per patient (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 2.3 ± 0.3 TAVR; p = 0.049); a higher incidence of low cardiac output state (5.7% versus 3.6% TAVR; p = 0.017) and acute renal failure (8.8% versus 4.1% TAVR; p = 0.01); and higher mean transprosthetic gradients (15.7 ± 12.6 mm Hg versus 11.9 ± 10.7 mm Hg TAVR; p = 0.004). In contrast, women undergoing TAVR experienced significant postprocedural aortic regurgitation (mild, 37.6% versus 7.7% sAVR; moderate-to-severe, 7.1% versus 1.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001) and a higher rate of stroke (7.7% versus 2.5% sAVR; p = 0.037), major vascular complications (9.3% versus 0.5% sAVR; p = 0.0001), pacemaker implantation (12.4% versus 6.2% sAVR; p = 0.004), need for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (1.0% versus 0% sAVR; p = 0.007), and longer intermediate care unit length of stay (2.5 ± 4.4 days versus 1.4 ± 2.6 days sAVR; p = 0.008). Perioperative myocardial infarction and lengths of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization were comparable (not significant).
Conclusions:
Women undergoing sAVR and TAVR experienced different periprocedural morbidities. These data strongly suggest the need to strictly individualize the indications.
