Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a significantly higher risk of worsening physical health-related quality of life at 4 years compared to surgical valve replacement (hazard ratio 3.91, 95% CI 1.46–10.5, P = 0.007) in patients aged 65-80 with severe aortic stenosis.
Observational (n=806)
Yes
Does SAVR compared to TAVI improve long-term quality of life and cognitive function in patients with stenotic aortic valve?
While short-term quality of life is similar between SAVR and TAVI, SAVR may offer better preservation of physical quality of life at 4 years.
Effect estimate: HR 3.91 for worsening in PCS with TAVI vs SAVR in matched cohort (95% CI 1.46–10.5)
p-value: p=0.007
In a real-world scenario, no differences in quality of life were observed between SAVR and TAVI at 1-year follow-up; conversely, at 4-year follow-up, the physical component of HRQL appeared to be better preserved in patients undergoing SAVR.
Ranucci et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Patients aged 65-80 years with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing either surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (n=806). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) assessed by SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) after valve procedure (HR 3.91 for worsening in PCS with TAVI vs SAVR in matched cohort, 95% CI 1.46–10.5, p=0.007). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a significantly higher risk of worsening physical health-related quality of life at 4 years compared to surgical valve replacement (hazard ratio 3.91, 95% CI 1.46–10.5, P = 0.007) in patients aged 65-80 with severe aortic stenosis.