Why the study?
Guidelines recommend TAVI or SAVR for select patients with aortic stenosis, with shared heart team decisions factoring in individual risks such as chronic kidney disease.
Does TAVI improve 1-year survival compared to SAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease?
Does TAVI improve 1-year survival compared to SAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease?
TAVI and SAVR offer comparable 1-year survival in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, though with differing complication profiles.
Supports either TAVI or SAVR in intermediate-risk CKD patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: ) for whom both procedures could possibly be considered (age ≤ 80 years, STS-score 4-8). BACKGROUND: According to both ACC/AHA and ESC/EACTS recent guidelines, aortic stenosis may be treated with either transcatheter (TAVI) or surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement in a subgroup of patients. A shared therapeutic decision is made by a heart team based on individual factors, including chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: Data from the large nationwide German Aortic Valve Registry were used. A propensity score method was used to select 704 TAVI and 374 SAVR matched patients. Primary endpoint was 1-year survival. Secondary endpoints were clinical complications, including pacemaker implantation, vascular complications, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and the need for new-onset dialysis. RESULTS: One-year survival was similar (HR [95% CI] for TAVI 1.271 [0.795, 2.031], p = 0.316), with no divergence in Kaplan-Meier curves. In spite of post-procedural short-term survival being numerically higher for TAVI patients and 1-year survival being numerically higher for SAVR patients, such differences did not reach statistical significance (96.4% vs. 94.2%, p = 0.199, and 86.2% vs. 81.2%, p = 0.316, respectively). In weighted analyses, pacemaker implantation, vascular complications, and were significantly more common with TAVI; whereas myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion, and longer ICU-stay and overall hospitalization were higher with SAVR. Temporary dialysis was more common with SAVR (p < 0.0001); however, a probable need for chronic dialysis was rare and similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Both TAVI and SAVR led to comparable and excellent results in patients with moderate-to-severe CKD in an intermediate-risk population of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis for whom both therapies could possibly be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mas‐Peiró et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: