Key result
Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement resulted in a significantly different effective orifice area compared to surgical aortic valve replacement at one year (0.91 vs 0.85 cm2, p=0.035).
Why the study?
TAVR has emerged as an alternative to SAVR, but it remains important to compare effective orifice area and assess its impact on lifestyle modifications and mortality.
Does trans-catheter aortic valve replacement improve effective orifice area and quality of life compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis?
RCT (n=148)
Open-label
Computer randomization
Yes
Does trans-catheter aortic valve replacement improve effective orifice area and quality of life compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis?
Randomized trial compares effects of trans-catheter and surgical aortic valve replacement on outcomes in severe aortic stenosis, suggesting implications for treatment choice.
The objectives of this study were: (1) to compare the incidence of effective orifice area (EOA) after either the trans-catheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR); and (2) to assess the impact of EOA on life style modifications and mortality recorded after either surgical or trans-catheter aortic valve replacement. Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a valid alternative to SAVR in selected patients. It appears important to implement preventive strategies to avoid prosthesis failure without increasing operative risk. A case series of 148 consecutive patients from January 2023 to January 2025 with severe aortic valve stenosis. The patients were randomized into two groups as trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR as group A) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR as group B). The Echocardiography was done pre- and postoperatively, plus scales of life activities in the follow-up period (6 months and one year). In this study, a total of 148 patients were studied to determine the outcomes of patients who underwent either trans-catheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in terms of demographic, operative, and postoperative variables. There were significant improvement in Echo findings after 6 months and one year. In the other side, there were no significant differences comparing both groups according to quality of life parameters. In patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, EOA is good indicator for the success of SAVR than TAVR. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with better life style modifications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eltaweel et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (n=148). Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Effective orifice area (EOA) at one year (p=0.035). Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement resulted in a significantly different effective orifice area compared to surgical aortic valve replacement at one year (0.91 vs 0.85 cm2, p=0.035).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: