OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with medical treatment (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at increased surgical risk. BACKGROUND:Elderly patients with comorbidities are at considerable risk for SAVR. METHODS: Since July 2007, 442 patients with severe AS (age: 81.7 ± 6.0 years, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 22.3 ± 14.6%) underwent treatment allocation to MT (n = 78), SAVR (n = 107), or TAVI (n = 257) on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation protocol as part of a prospective registry. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients allocated to MT and TAVI, whereas patients allocated to SAVR were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower predicted peri-operative risk (p < 0.001). Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months were lower for SAVR (22.4%) and TAVI (22.6%) compared with MT (61.5%, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.87) for SAVR compared with MT and 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.58) for TAVI compared with MT. Medical treatment (<0.001), older age (>80 years, p = 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (<0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months in the multivariate analysis. At 1 year, more patients undergoing SAVR (92.3%) or TAVI (93.2%) had New York Heart Association functional class I/II as compared with patients with MT (70.8%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe AS with increased surgical risk, SAVR and TAVI improve survival and symptoms compared with MT. Clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR seem similar among carefully selected patients with severe symptomatic AS at increased risk. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with medical treatment (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at increased surgical risk. BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with comorbidities are at considerable risk for SAVR. METHODS: Since July 2007, 442 patients with severe AS (age: 81.7 ± 6.0 years, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 22.3 ± 14.6%) underwent treatment allocation to MT (n = 78), SAVR (n = 107), or TAVI (n = 257) on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation protocol as part of a prospective registry. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients allocated to MT and TAVI, whereas patients allocated to SAVR were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower predicted peri-operative risk (p < 0.001). Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months were lower for SAVR (22.4%) and TAVI (22.6%) compared with MT (61.5%, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.87) for SAVR compared with MT and 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.58) for TAVI compared with MT. Medical treatment (<0.001), older age (>80 years, p = 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (<0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months in the multivariate analysis. At 1 year, more patients undergoing SAVR (92.3%) or TAVI (93.2%) had New York Heart Association functional class I/II as compared with patients with MT (70.8%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe AS with increased surgical risk, SAVR and TAVI improve survival and symptoms compared with MT. Clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR seem similar among carefully selected patients with severe symptomatic AS at increased risk. Copyright Â
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; John A Spertus; Yang Lei; Philip Green; Ajay J Kirtane; Samir Kapadia; Vinod H Thourani; Howard C Herrmann; Nirat Beohar; Alan Zajarias; Michael J Mack; Martin B Leon; David J Cohen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-09-10
Authors: Alistair C Lindsay; Mona Sriharan; Olga Lazoura; Arunashis Sau; Michael Roughton; Richard J Jabbour; Carlo Di Mario; Simon W Davies; Neil E Moat; Simon P G Padley; Michael B Rubens; Edward D Nicol Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Masahiko Asami; Thomas Pilgrim; Stefan Stortecky; Dik Heg; Eva Roost; Stephan Windecker; Lukas Hunziker Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Christopher Cao; Su C Ang; Praveen Indraratna; Con Manganas; Paul Bannon; Deborah Black; David Tian; Tristan D Yan Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2013-01