CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left ventricular remodelling and changes in functional measurements in patients undergoing transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement: a head-to-head comparison Evolving concepts in the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation Edoxaban versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Leaflet Thrombosis and Cerebral Thromboembolism after TAVR: The ADAPT-TAVR Randomized Clinical Trial Minimum Core Data Elements for Evaluation of TAVR: A Scientific Statement by PASSION CV, HVC, and TVT Registry 2-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Represents an Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Via Reduction of Shear Stress–Induced, Piezo-1–Mediated Monocyte Activation Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR Anticoagulation with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation

Original Research2017 Apr 6;376(14):1321-1331.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, SURTAVI Investigators. Keywords: severe aortic stenosis; intermediate surgical risk; TAVR; SAVR

FULL TEXT PDF


BACKGROUND - Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk.


METHODS - We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.


RESULTS - A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group.


CONCLUSIONS - TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .).