Treatment of pure aortic regurgitation using surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement between 2018 and 2020 in Germany

BACKGROUND: In pure aortic regurgitation, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not yet used on a regular base. Due to constant development of TAVR, it is necessary to analyze current data. METHODS: By use of health records, we analyzed all isolated TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) for pure aortic regurgitation between 2018 and 2020 in Germany. RESULTS: 4,861 procedures—4,025 SAVR and 836 TAVR—for aortic regurgitation were identified. Patients treated with TAVR were older, showed a higher logistic EuroSCORE, and had more pre-existing diseases. While results indicate a slightly higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality for transapical TAVR (6.00%) vs. SAVR (5.71%), transfemoral TAVR showed better outcomes, with self-expanding compared to balloon-expandable transfemoral TAVR having significantly lower in-hospital mortality (2.41% vs. 5.17%; p = 0.039). After risk adjustment, balloon-expandable as well as self-expanding transfemoral TAVR were associated with a significantly lower mortality vs. SAVR (balloon-expandable: risk adjusted OR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.27; 0.94], p = 0.031; self-expanding: OR = 0.20 [0.10; 0.41], p < 0.001). Furthermore, the observed in-hospital outcomes of stroke, major bleeding, delirium, and mechanical ventilation >48 h were significantly in favor of TAVR. In addition, TAVR showed a significantly shorter length of hospital stay compared to SAVR (transapical: risk adjusted Coefficient = −4.75d [−7.05d; −2.46d], p < 0.001; balloon-expandable: Coefficient = −6.88d [−9.06d; −4.69d], p < 0.001; self-expanding: Coefficient = −7.22 [−8.95; −5.49], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation for selected patients, showing overall low in-hospital mortality and complication rates, especially with regard to self-expanding transfemoral TAVR.