Key result
TAVR shows no difference versus surgery for composite outcomes in low-risk patients at five years.
Why the study?
Does Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement (TAVR) improve primary composite outcomes in low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis compared to surgery?
Does Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement (TAVR) improve primary composite outcomes in low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis compared to surgery?
At five years, TAVR performs similarly to surgery regarding primary composite outcomes in low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“[The study] provides robust, long-term evidence supporting the use of balloon-expandable TAVR in appropriately selected low-risk patients and reinforces the current guideline recommendations.”
Supports TAVR as durable alternative to surgery in low-risk aortic stenosis; extends randomized evidence to 5 years.
Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mack et al. (2023) studied this question. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) showed no significant difference in primary composite outcomes compared to surgery in low-risk patients at five years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: