Dataset Information

Five-Year Health Status After Self-expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In the CoreValve High-Risk Trial, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis had similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over 5 years of follow-up, with mortality rates of more than 50% in both groups.

Objective

To describe the long-term health status of surviving patients randomized to self-expanding TAVR vs SAVR.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized clinical trial included patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis who completed a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and were randomized to either self-expanding TAVR or SAVR from 45 US clinical sites. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2012. Analysis began May 2018 and ended June 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Change in KCCQ and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey over 5 years, as assessed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Because there were significant interactions between access site and treatment for 1-month health status outcomes, all analyses were stratified by access site (iliofemoral or noniliofemoral).

Results

Of 713 patients, 377 (53%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 83 (7) years. Prior to treatment, the mean (SD) KCCQ overall summary score (range, 0-100; higher score indicated better health status) was 47 (23), indicating substantial health status impairment. Among surviving patients, the KCCQ overall summary score increased significantly in both groups with greater early benefit with iliofemoral TAVR than SAVR (1-month difference, 16.8 points; 95% CI, 12.4-21.2). However, this early treatment difference between TAVR and SAVR was no longer apparent by 6 months, and there was no significant difference in health status between groups thereafter. At 5 years, 44% (134 of 305) of patients who underwent iliofemoral TAVR and 39% (105 of 266) who underwent SAVR were alive in this high-risk elderly cohort. Among surviving patients for whom health status data were available, 61% (48 of 79) in the TAVR group and 65% (46 of 71) in the SAVR group had KCCQ overall summary score more than 60 (P = .61). In the noniliofemoral cohort, there were no significant health status differences at any time between TAVR and SAVR. Results were similar for individual KCCQ domains and the Short-Form Health Survey.

Conclusions and relevance

In high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, there was an early health status benefit with self-expanding iliofemoral TAVR vs SAVR but no difference between groups in long-term health status. Although mortality at 5 years was high in this population, the majority of surviving patients continued to report reasonable health status.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

SUBMITTER: Arnold SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.MethodsWe performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.ResultsRelative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.ConclusionsIn a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.StandardsWith expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter 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.ObjectiveTo compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.ExposuresPrimary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.ResultsOverall, 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 relevanceTranscatheter 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.