Michael J Reardon1, Neal S Kleiman1, David H Adams2, Steven J Yakubov3, Joseph S Coselli4, G Michael Deeb5, Daniel O'Hair6, Thomas G Gleason7, Joon Sup Lee7, James B Hermiller8, Stan Chetcuti5, John Heiser9, William Merhi9, George L Zorn10, Peter Tadros10, Newell Robinson11, George Petrossian11, G Chad Hughes12, J Kevin Harrison12, Brijeshwar Maini13, Mubashir Mumtaz13, John V Conte14, Jon R Resar14, Vicken Aharonian15, Thomas Pfeffer15, Jae K Oh16, Jian Huang17, Jeffrey J Popma18. 1. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York. 3. Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Texas Heart Institute, CHI St. Luke's Health, Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center, Houston. 5. University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor. 6. St. Luke's Medical Center/Aurora Health Care, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 7. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. St. Vincent Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. 9. Spectrum Health Hospitals, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 10. The University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City. 11. St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York. 12. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 13. Pinnacle Health, Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania14Tenet Florida, Coral Springs, Florida. 14. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. 15. Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 16. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 17. Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 18. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. There is interest in whether TAVR would benefit patients at lower risk. Objective: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We hypothesized that if the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the contribution to survival based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult to show improved survival and benefit over SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less. The trial was performed at 45 US sites. Patients had severe aortic stenosis and were at increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: We retrospectively stratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less. Results: The mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group. A little more than half were men (57.9% in the TAVR group and 55.8% in the SAVR group). Of 750 patients who underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]). Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95% CI, 19.7-33.0) (log rank P = .01). The 2-year rate of stroke for TAVR vs SAVR was 11.3% vs 15.1% (log rank P = .50). Quality of life by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score showed significant and equivalent increases in both groups at 2 years (mean [SD] TAVR, 20.0 [25.0]; SAVR, 18.6 [23.6]; P = .71; both P < .001 compared with baseline). Medical benefit, defined as alive with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score of at least 60 and a less than 10-point decrease from baseline, was similar between groups at 2 years (TAVR, 51.0%; SAVR, 44.4%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. There is interest in whether TAVR would benefit patients at lower risk. Objective: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We hypothesized that if the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the contribution to survival based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult to show improved survival and benefit over SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less. The trial was performed at 45 US sites. Patients had severe aortic stenosis and were at increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: We retrospectively stratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less. Results: The mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group. A little more than half were men (57.9% in the TAVR group and 55.8% in the SAVR group). Of 750 patients who underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]). Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95% CI, 19.7-33.0) (log rank P = .01). The 2-year rate of stroke for TAVR vs SAVR was 11.3% vs 15.1% (log rank P = .50). Quality of life by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score showed significant and equivalent increases in both groups at 2 years (mean [SD] TAVR, 20.0 [25.0]; SAVR, 18.6 [23.6]; P = .71; both P < .001 compared with baseline). Medical benefit, defined as alive with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score of at least 60 and a less than 10-point decrease from baseline, was similar between groups at 2 years (TAVR, 51.0%; SAVR, 44.4%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.
Authors: Gloria Färber; Sabine Bleiziffer; Torsten Doenst; Dimitra Bon; Andreas Böning; Helge Weiler; Eva Herrmann; Christian Frerker; Andreas Beckmann; Helge Möllmann; Stephan Ensminger; Raffi Bekeredjian; Thomas Walther; Wolfgang Harringer; Hugo A Katus; Christian W Hamm; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Timm Bauer; Stephan Fichtlscherer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Pey-Jen Yu; Allan Mattia; Hugh A Cassiere; Rick Esposito; Frank Manetta; Nina Kohn; Alan R Hartman Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Benyamin Rahmani; Spyros Tzamtzis; Rose Sheridan; Michael J Mullen; John Yap; Alexander M Seifalian; Gaetano Burriesci Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Michael Buege; Till Koehler; Ralf Heiderhoff; Marc Papenheim; Si Wang; Heinrich Schleiting; Wolfgang H Arnold; Jason R Foerst; Melchior Seyfarth; Klaus Tiroch; Thomas Riedl; Marc Vorpahl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240