7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement.

          The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document.

            The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair). Copyright © 2013 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

              Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain high-risk surgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. It is unknown whether TAVR can be safely introduced to lower-risk patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                European Heart Journal
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0195-668X
                1522-9645
                April 23 2019
                April 23 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
                [2 ]Department of Cardiology, Oxford Heart Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
                [3 ]Institut Coeur-Poumon, Service de Chirurgie Cardiovasculaire, Hôpital Cardiologique, CHRU de Lille, 2 Av Oscar Lambret, 59037 Lille, France
                [4 ]Department of Cardiology, St Thomas’ Hospital, Westminster Bridge Rd, London, UK
                [5 ]Cairns Library, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
                [6 ]Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, Bern, Switzerland
                [7 ]Department of Cardiology, The Heart Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [8 ]Division of Cardiac Surgery, St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto M5B 1W8, ON, Canada
                [9 ]Department of Medicine and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                Article
                10.1093/eurheartj/ehz275
                31329852
                be34e5fb-7194-4225-a8c5-fb3c8777eba4
                © 2019

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article