TAVR is an effective and durable treatment option that is successfully expanding from high-risk to intermediate-risk patients.
Supports TAVR use in high- and intermediate-risk patients; leaves open need for longer-term randomized validation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been effective in prohibitive/high-risk patients. Expansion toward intermediate or even low-risk patients has been proposed. A review of recent developments will help understand current trends and issues. RECENT FINDINGS: The 5-year results from the PARTNER I trial and 2-year results of the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial, together with national registries, confirmed the long-term efficacy and durability of TAVR. Studies including PARTNER II, ADVANCE, and The German Aortic Valve Registry showed short-to mid-term success in intermediate-risk patients. Comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves in the CHOICE trial associated specific outcome differences with specific valve types, suggesting a more customized approach in valve selection. Short-term results of newer-generation valves have demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy with improved designs. Studies on TAVR-specific complications, such as conduction block and arrhythmia, paravalvular aortic regurgitation, and stroke, have renewed ideas about their prognosis, treatment, and prevention. Conscious sedation percutaneous TAVR has become more popular, with excellent outcomes and improved cost savings. SUMMARY: TAVR has been accepted as an effective treatment even for intermediate-risk patients. This article aims to review the most recent results and essential issues.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsai et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: