Literature DB >> 32175228

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low risk patients: a review of PARTNER 3 and Evolut low risk trials.

Joao Braghiroli1, Kunal Kapoor1, Torin P Thielhelm1, Tanira Ferreira1, Mauricio G Cohen1.   

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a mainstay in treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are considered high-risk surgical candidates. The use of TAVR in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis is being explored as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recent results from the Medtronic Evolut Low Risk trial and the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 trial shed light on the use of TAVR in low-risk surgical candidates. The Evolut Low Risk trial compared TAVR with a self-expanding supra-annular bioprosthesis to SAVR in 1468 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were low surgical risk. Patients with a mean age of 74 and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score of 1.9% were randomized to either TAVR or SAVR groups. Using the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, the study found an incidence of 5.3% in the TAVR arm and 6.7% in the surgical arm. The Evolut Low Risk trial thus concluded that TAVR was statistically noninferior but not superior to SAVR (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). The PARTNER 3 trial assigned 1,000 patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to either TAVR with transfemoral placement of balloon expandable valve or SAVR. Patients with a mean age of 73 and a mean STS score of 1.9% were randomized to either TAVR or SAVR groups. With respect to the primary endpoint of composite death from any cause, stroke, or rehospitalization, the study found an occurrence of 8.5% in TAVR and 15.1% in SAVR, confirming both noninferiority and superiority in the TAVR group [absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P=0.001 for superiority]. Both the Evolut low risk trial and the PARTNER 3 trial provide evidence that the use of TAVR extends beyond the scope of high and intermediate risk surgical patients and is at the very least equivalent to SAVR in the treatment low-risk surgical candidates when using a transfemoral approach in patients without bicuspid aortic valves. In this article we provide an extensive review on the Evolute low risk and PARTNER 3 trials, including a discussion on clinically relevant outcomes. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evolut low risk; PARTNER 3; Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)

Year:  2020        PMID: 32175228      PMCID: PMC7044101          DOI: 10.21037/cdt.2019.09.12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther        ISSN: 2223-3652


  8 in total

1.  Structured Allocation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients during Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Impact on Patient Selection and Clinical Results.

Authors:  Nora Berisha; Kathrin Klein; Verena Veulemans; Oliver Maier; Kerstin Piayda; Stephan Binnebößel; Shazia Afzal; Amin Polzin; Ralf Westenfeld; Patrick Horn; Christian Jung; Malte Kelm; Christine Quast; Tobias Zeus
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dev Dis       Date:  2022-06-10

2.  Perioperative left ventricular perforation in incomplete TAVI and completion of the procedure after surgical repair.

Authors:  Giuseppe Nasso; Giuseppe Santarpino; Gaetano Contegiacomo; Giuseppe Balducci; Antongiulio Valenzano; Enrico Moranti; Domenico Scaringi; Giuseppe Speziale; Ignazio Condello
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 1.522

3.  Assessment of Paravalvular Leak Severity and Thrombogenic Potential in Transcatheter Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacements Using Patient-Specific Computational Modeling.

Authors:  Salwa B Anam; Brandon J Kovarovic; Ram P Ghosh; Matteo Bianchi; Ashraf Hamdan; Rami Haj-Ali; Danny Bluestein
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 3.216

4.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the developing world: Lessons learnt and its implications for practice.

Authors:  Rajat Datta; Prashant Bharadwaj; Naveen Aggarwal; G Keshavamurthy; Prafull Sharma; Nitin Bajaj; Vijay Bohra; V S Guleria; Balbir Singh
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2022-02-01

Review 5.  Evolving Indications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to Surgical Valve Replacement: A Review of the Current Literature.

Authors:  Shitij Shrivastava; Shashwat Shrivastava; Kahkashan Mumtaz; Jihan A Mostafa
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-03-21

6.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Report on Serbia's First Systematic Program.

Authors:  Darko Boljevic; Milovan Bojic; Mihajlo Farkic; Dragan Sagic; Dragan Topic; Vladimir Kovacevic; Jovana Lakcevic; Stefan Veljkovic; Milan Dobric; Sasa Hinic; Nenad Ilijevski; Marko Nikolic; Aleksandra Kaludjerovic; Matjaz Bunc; Aleksandra Nikolic
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-05-24

Review 7.  The application of 3D printing in preoperative planning for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paris Xenofontos; Reza Zamani; Mohammad Akrami
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.903

8.  Temporal Trend, Prevalence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Pericardial Diseases in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Repair.

Authors:  Kashyap Shah; Matthew Krinock; Harshith Thyagaturu; Rezwan Munshi; Ayushi Pandya; Sarah Falta; John Hippen; Michael Durkin
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-07-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.