Dataset Information

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce. Objective:To compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts. Exposures:Primary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival. Results:Overall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P?=?.12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P?=?.45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not. Conclusions and Relevance:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Virtanen MPO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6575142 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk.

Virtanen Marko P O MPO Eskola Markku M Jalava Maina P MP Husso Annastiina A Laakso Teemu T Niemelä Matti M Ahvenvaara Tuomas T Tauriainen Tuomas T Maaranen Pasi P Kinnunen Eeva-Maija EM Dahlbacka Sebastian S Jaakkola Jussi J Vasankari Tuija T Airaksinen Juhani J Anttila Vesa V Rosato Stefano S D'Errigo Paola P Savontaus Mikko M Juvonen Tatu T Laine Mika M Mäkikallio Timo T Valtola Antti A Raivio Peter P Biancari Fausto F

JAMA network open 20190605 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This retrospective ...[more]

PMID: 31199448

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis have not been studied in a large scale, multicentered, prospective fashion.ObjectiveTo evaluate the procedural safety, efficacy, and 30-day outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk.Design, setting, and participantsThe Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm trial study with inclusion/exclusion criteria developed from the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial. Follow-up is planned for 10 years. Patients underwent TAVR at 25 centers in the United States who were also participating in the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial from December 2018 to October 2019. Eligible patients had severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and met American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline indications for aortic valve replacement.InterventionsPatients underwent attempted implant of an Evolut or Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve, with valve size based on annular measurements.Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary end point was the incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30 days. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was device success defined as the absence of procedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical location, and the absence of more than mild aortic regurgitation postprocedure.ResultsA total of 150 patients underwent an attempted implant. Baseline characteristics include mean age of 70.3 (5.5) years, 48.0% female (n = 72), and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.4 (0.6%). Most patients (136; 90.7%) had Sievers type I valve morphology. The incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.3%) at 30 days. The device success rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.1%). At 30 days, the mean (SD) AV gradient was 7.6 (3.7) mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.3 (0.7) cm2. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 22 patients (15.1%). No patients had greater than mild paravalvular leak.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis achieved favorable 30-day results, with low rates of death and stroke and high device success rate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635424.

Project description:ImportanceThere are limited data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis in patients who are at low surgical risk.Design, setting, and participantsRegistry-based cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 684 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to October 2020. Among 159 661 patients (7058 bicuspid, 152 603 tricuspid), 37 660 patients (3243 bicuspid and 34 417 tricuspid) who were at low surgical risk (defined as STS risk score <3%) were included in the analysis.ExposuresTAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications and valve hemodynamics.ResultsAmong 159 661 patients (7058 bicuspid; 152 603 tricuspid), 3168 propensity-matched pairs of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk were analyzed (mean age, 69 years; 69.8% men; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 1.7% [0.6%] for bicuspid and 1.7% [0.7%] for tricuspid). There was no significant difference between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups' rates of death at 30 days (0.9% vs 0.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.68-2.03]; P = .55) and at 1 year (4.6% vs 6.6%; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55-1.02]; P = .06) or stroke at 30 days (1.4% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.73-1.78]; P = .55) and at 1 year (2.0% vs 2.1%; HR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.53]; P = .89).There were no significant differences between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups in procedural complications, valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradient: 13.2 mm Hg vs 13.5 mm Hg; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.3 mm Hg]), and moderate or severe paravalvular leak (3.4% vs 2.1%; absolute RD, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 3.2%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients at low surgical risk who had undergone TAVR for aortic stenosis, patients treated for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in mortality or stroke at 30 days or 1 year. Because of the potential for selection bias and absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid aortic stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk.

Project description:Recently, two randomized trials, the PARTNER 3 and the Evolut Low Risk Trial, independently demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk, paving the way to a progressive extension of clinical indications to TAVR. We designed a meta-analysis to compare TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131125). Randomized studies comparing one-year outcomes of TAVR or SAVR were searched for within Medline, Scholar and Scopus electronic databases. A total of three randomized studies were selected, including nearly 3000 patients. After one year, the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33-0.95; p = 0.03). Conversely, no differences were observed between the groups for one-year all-cause mortality (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.42-1.07; p = 0.10). Among the secondary endpoints, patients undergoing TAVR have lower risk of new-onset of atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.39; p < 0.00001), major bleeding (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.65; p < 0.002) and acute kidney injury stage II or III (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14-0.58; p = 0.0005). Conversely, TAVR was associated to a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (RR = 3.96; 95% CI 1.31-11.99; p = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 1.33-9.07; p = 0.01) compared to SAVR. No differences were observed between the groups in the risks of stroke (RR= 0.71; 95% CI 0.41-1.25; p = 0.24), transient ischemic attack (TIA; RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.53-1.83; p = 0.96), and MI (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43-1.29; p = 0.29). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis, including three randomized studies and nearly 3000 patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, shows that TAVR is associated with lower CV death compared to SAVR at one-year follow-up. Nevertheless, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation still represent two weak spots that should be solved.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk.

Publications

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets