Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation improve outcomes compared to surgical replacement in intermediate-low risk patients with aortic stenosis?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation improve outcomes compared to surgical replacement in intermediate-low risk patients with aortic stenosis?
This review evaluates the clinical evidence, technical improvements, durability, and cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical replacement in intermediate-low risk patients with aortic stenosis.
Informs TAVI consideration in intermediate-low risk aortic stenosis; leaves open durability and cost-effectiveness questions for trials.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation underwent progressive improvements until it became the default therapy for inoperable patients, and a recommended therapy in high-risk operable patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In the lower-risk patient strata, a currently costly therapy that still has important complications with questionable durability is competing with the established effective and still-improving surgical replacement. This report tries to weigh the clinical evidence, the recent technical improvements, the durability, and the cost-effectiveness claims supporting the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in intermediate-low risk patients. The importance of appropriate patients' risk stratification and a more comprehensive approach to estimate that risk are also emphasized in the present report.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdelghani et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: