Hans Gustav Hørsted Thyregod1, Daniel Andreas Steinbrüchel2, Nikolaj Ihlemann3, Henrik Nissen4, Bo Juel Kjeldsen5, Petur Petursson6, Yanping Chang7, Olaf Walter Franzen3, Thomas Engstrøm3, Peter Clemmensen3, Peter Bo Hansen8, Lars Willy Andersen8, Peter Skov Olsen2, Lars Søndergaard3. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: hans.gustav.thyregod@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 6. Department of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 7. Department of Statistics, Medtronic Inc., Mounds View, Minnesota. 8. Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain high-risk surgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. It is unknown whether TAVR can be safely introduced to lower-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: The NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial) randomized clinical trial compared TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in an all-comers patient cohort. METHODS:Patients ≥ 70 years old with severe aortic valve stenosis and no significant coronary artery disease were randomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus SAVR. The primary outcome was the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were randomized at 3 Nordic centers. Mean age was 79.1 years, and 81.8% were considered low-risk patients. In the intention-to-treat population, no significant difference in the primary endpoint was found (13.1% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.43 for superiority). The result did not change in the as-treated population. No difference in the rate of cardiovascular death or prosthesis reintervention was found. Compared with SAVR-treated patients, TAVR-treated patients had more conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker implantation, larger improvement in effective orifice area, more total aortic valve regurgitation, and higher New York Heart Association functional class at 1 year. SAVR-treated patients had more major or life-threatening bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury (stage II or III), and new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation at 30 days than did TAVR-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the NOTION trial, no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR was found for the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or MI after 1 year. (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial [NOTION]; NCT01057173).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain high-risk surgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. It is unknown whether TAVR can be safely introduced to lower-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: The NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial) randomized clinical trial compared TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in an all-comers patient cohort. METHODS:Patients ≥ 70 years old with severe aortic valve stenosis and no significant coronary artery disease were randomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus SAVR. The primary outcome was the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were randomized at 3 Nordic centers. Mean age was 79.1 years, and 81.8% were considered low-risk patients. In the intention-to-treat population, no significant difference in the primary endpoint was found (13.1% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.43 for superiority). The result did not change in the as-treated population. No difference in the rate of cardiovascular death or prosthesis reintervention was found. Compared with SAVR-treated patients, TAVR-treated patients had more conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker implantation, larger improvement in effective orifice area, more total aortic valve regurgitation, and higher New York Heart Association functional class at 1 year. SAVR-treated patients had more major or life-threatening bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury (stage II or III), and new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation at 30 days than did TAVR-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the NOTION trial, no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR was found for the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or MI after 1 year. (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial [NOTION]; NCT01057173).
Authors: Joanna L d'Arcy; Sean Coffey; Margaret A Loudon; Andrew Kennedy; Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard; Jacqueline Birks; Eleni Frangou; Andrew J Farmer; David Mant; Jo Wilson; Saul G Myerson; Bernard D Prendergast Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-06-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Luise Gaede; Johannes Blumenstein; Won-Keun Kim; Christoph Liebetrau; Oliver Dörr; Holger Nef; Christian Hamm; Albrecht Elsässer; Helge Möllmann Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Gudrun Lamm; Matthias Hammerer; Uta C Hoppe; Martin Andreas; Rudolf Berger; Ronald K Binder; Nikolaos Bonaros; Georg Delle-Karth; Matthias Frick; Michael Grund; Bernhard Metzler; Thomas Neunteufl; Philipp Pichler; Albrecht Schmidt; Wilfried Wisser; Andreas Zierer; Rainald Seitelberger; Michael Grimm; Alexander Geppert Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Susheel Kodali; Vinod H Thourani; Jonathon White; S Chris Malaisrie; Scott Lim; Kevin L Greason; Mathew Williams; Mayra Guerrero; Andrew C Eisenhauer; Samir Kapadia; Dean J Kereiakes; Howard C Herrmann; Vasilis Babaliaros; Wilson Y Szeto; Rebecca T Hahn; Philippe Pibarot; Neil J Weissman; Jonathon Leipsic; Philipp Blanke; Brian K Whisenant; Rakesh M Suri; Raj R Makkar; Girma M Ayele; Lars G Svensson; John G Webb; Michael J Mack; Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 29.983