Why the study?
How do outcomes and procedural challenges compare between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis?
How do outcomes and procedural challenges compare between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis?
This review provides an overview of procedural differences, challenges, and comparative outcomes between TAVR and SAVR for severe aortic stenosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Offers synthesis to guide TAVR/SAVR selection in severe AS; leaves open need for updated comparative trials.
Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and is increasing in prevalence as the global population increases. Since AS primarily affects the elderly, many of these patients have comorbidities that make them poor candidates for the gold standard treatment for AS, surgical aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a novel technology for the management of AS in higher risk patients over the past decade. Randomized trials have established the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and the medical community has rallied to identify the patients who are most suitable for this transformative treatment. This review focuses on outlining the key procedural differences, describing the unique challenges of both operations, and finally assessing and comparing outcomes both on a general level and in challenging patient subgroups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thourani et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: