Rapid deployment versus trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: A propensity score analysis.

A total of 152 patients were included from 2012 to 2018: 48 in the RDAVR group and 104 in the TAVR group. The mean age was 82.7 ± 6.0,51.3% patients were female, the mean EuroSCORE II was 6.03 ± 1.6%, mean baseline LVEF was 56 ± 13%, mean indexed effective orifice area was 0.41 ± 0.1 cm/m2 , and the mean gradient was 51.7 ± 14.7 mmHg. RDAVR patients were younger (79.5 ± 6 years vs. 82.6 ± 6 years; p = .01), and at higher risk (EuroSCORE II, 6.61 ± 1.8% vs. 5.63 ± 1.5%; p = .005), Twenty-two patients (45.99%) in the RDAVR group and 32 (66.67%) in the TAVR group met the composite criterion. Through the 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, there was a significant difference between the groups, favoring RDAVR (HR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.34-1.00]; p = .04). No differences were observed in terms of patient-prosthesis mismatch (0.83 [0.35-1.94]; p = .67), major bleeding events (1.33 [0.47-3.93]; p = .59), paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2 (0.33[0-6.28]; p = .46), or pacemaker implantation (0.84 [0.25-2.84]; p = .77) CONCLUSION: RDAVR was associated with better 2-year outcomes than TAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS.