Why the study?
Does TAVR reduce the composite of death, stroke, or procedure-, valve, or heart failure-related hospitalization compared to SAVR in younger low-risk patients with severe tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis?
RCT (n=370)
1:1
Does TAVR reduce the composite of death, stroke, or procedure-, valve, or heart failure-related hospitalization compared to SAVR in younger low-risk patients with severe tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In younger, low-risk patients (aged 60-75) with severe aortic stenosis, TAVR and SAVR demonstrated similar clinical outcomes and low rates of structural valve deterioration at three years.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly performed in younger, low surgical risk patients. This NOTION-2 study reports mid-term outcomes in low-risk patients aged 60-75 years with severe tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVR or surgical valve replacement. A total of 370 patients (mean age 71.1 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality [STS-PROM] 1.2%) were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to TAVR or surgery. This follow-up study reports clinical and echocardiographic outcomes up to three years of follow-up. At three years, the primary composite endpoint (death, stroke, or procedure-, valve, or heart failure-related hospitalization) occurred in 16.1% of TAVR patients vs. 12.6% in surgical patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8 - 2.2%; P=0.4). Among patients with tricuspid AS, rates were similar (14.5% vs. 14.4%), while bicuspid AS patients had a statistical non-significant higher risk with TAVR (20.4% vs. 7.8%; HR 2.9; 95% CI: 0.9 - 9.0). The risk of moderate or greater structural valve deterioration at three years was 4.5% and 5.2% for transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprostheses, respectively (HR 1.2; 95% CI: 0.4-3.1). Bioprosthetic valve failure rates were also comparable: 1.6% in the TAVR and 2.9% in the surgical group. For patients aged 60-75 years with severe AS who are at low surgical risk, three-year clinical outcomes are similar between TAVR and surgery. Both procedures are associated with low rates of structural valve deterioration and need for re-intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jørgensen et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in severe tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis (n=370). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical valve replacement was evaluated on composite endpoint (death, stroke, or procedure-, valve, or heart failure-related hospitalization) (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 - 2.2, p=0.4).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: