Why the study?
Is TAVI a viable alternative to SAVR in younger, low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Is TAVI a viable alternative to SAVR in younger, low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis?
This review highlights the clinical shift towards using TAVI in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis ahead of definitive randomized trial data.
Registry trends show TAVI adoption in low-risk patients; leaves open safety and efficacy versus SAVR pending RCTs.
For decades, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). With the clinical introduction of the concept of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), a rapid development took place and, based on the results of landmark randomised controlled trials, within a few years TAVI became first-line therapy for inoperable patients with severe AS and an alternative to SAVR in operable high-risk patients. Indeed, data from a recent randomised controlled trial suggest that TAVI is superior to SAVR in higher-risk patients with AS. New TAVI devices have been developed to address current limitations, to optimise results further and to minimise complications. First results using these second-generation valves are promising. However, no data from randomised controlled trials assessing TAVI in younger, low-risk patients are yet available. While we await the results of trials addressing these issues (e.g., SURTAVI [NCT01586910] and PARTNER II [NCT01314313]), recent data from TAVI registries suggest that treatment of low-risk patients is already fact and no longer fiction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haußig et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from EuroIntervention