Key result
TAVI without prior invasive assessment was associated with similar 30-day all-cause mortality compared to TAVI with invasive assessment (4.1% vs 6.0%; HR 1.40; 95% CI 0.33-5.92; p=0.65).
Why the study?
Does TAVI without prior invasive assessment result in similar clinical outcomes compared to TAVI with prior invasive assessment in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Cohort (n=489)
No
Does TAVI without prior invasive assessment result in similar clinical outcomes compared to TAVI with prior invasive assessment in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Ad hoc TAVI without prior invasive assessment appears feasible and safe, yielding similar 30-day ischemic outcomes and potentially less major bleeding compared to standard pre-procedural invasive evaluation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support omitting routine invasive assessment before TAVI in selected patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of safety and outcomes.
Summary Aims: To investigate the feasibility and safety of TAVI without prior invasive assessment. Methods and Results: A total of 489 patients underwent TAVI for treatment of severe aortic stenosis between July 2007 and April 2012 and were included in a prospective single-centre registry. Of 437 patients (90%), pre-procedural evaluation included right and left heart catheterisation, whereas 49 patients (10%) were scheduled to undergo TAVI without prior invasive assessment. Among patients without invasive assess ment, coronary angiography was performed immediately before TAVI within the same intervention. Baseline patient characteristics and calculated risk scores were comparable between groups. Coronary artery disease was detected in 64% and 49% of patients with and without invasive assessment, respectively (p = 0.06), and resulted in more frequent use of concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention among patients without invasive a ssessment (15% vs 27%, p = 0.04). Clinical outcome at 30 days revealed no significant differences between patients with and without invasive assessment in terms of all-cause mortality (6.0% vs 4.1%, HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.33–5.92, p = 0.65), myocardial infarction (0.5% vs. 0%, p = 1.00), and major stroke (2.6% vs. 4.2%, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.14–2.75, p = 0.52). Major bleeding was more frequent among patients undergoing invasive assessment as compared to those without invasive assessment (28.9% vs. 14.3%, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.00–4.07, p = 0.05). Conclusions: In selected patients, TAVI without prior invasive assessment may r esult in similar risk of ischaemic events compared to TAVI among patients with invasive assessment despite the more frequent use of concomitant PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pilgrim et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in severe aortic stenosis (n=489). TAVI without prior invasive assessment vs. TAVI with prior invasive assessment was evaluated on all-cause mortality at 30 days (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.33-5.92, p=0.65). TAVI without prior invasive assessment was associated with similar 30-day all-cause mortality compared to TAVI with invasive assessment (4.1% vs 6.0%; HR 1.40; 95% CI 0.33-5.92; p=0.65).
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: