Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Impact on Outcomes and Cancer Treatment Schedule.

BACKGROUND Recent data suggest that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) is viable in cancer patients. TAVR may be preferred in cancer patients due to its minimally invasive nature and smaller impact on oncologic therapies compared to SAVR. OBJECTIVES We sought to determine if TAVR is an acceptable alternative to SAVR in cancer patients and whether TAVR allows for earlier initiation or resumption of anti-cancer therapies. METHODS Cancer patients in a tertiary cancer center diagnosed with severe AS were retrospectively included. Patients accepted by the heart team underwent either TAVR or SAVR, while remaining patients received medical therapy alone. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatment and the impact of cancer treatment on the replaced valves were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to determine the impact of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS) in all 3 subgroups. RESULTS One hundred and eighty-seven cancer patients diagnosed with severe AS were identified. AVR was associated with better OS compared to medical therapy alone (p<0.0001). TAVR was associated with better OS at 72 months (HR=0.468, p<0.001) compared to medical therapy alone, with no difference in OS observed between SAVR and TAVR. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatments were shorter in the TAVR group, with no valve deterioration or infection observed in all groups. CONCLUSION Cancer patients with severe AS benefit from AVR. TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk cancer patients to prolong survival and allow for earlier administration or resumption of anti-neoplastic therapies.