Key result
Transapical TAVI achieved similar adjusted quality of life compared with SAVR, as an initial difference in SF-36 physical health metascore (49.7 vs 62.0, P=0.015) disappeared after adjustment.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation via transapical access improve health-related quality of life compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients?
Population
144 high-risk patients referred for aortic valve replacement
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via… vs Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
15 ± 10 months
Authors
Loading...
Transapical TAVI was associated with similar adjusted quality of life versus SAVR; observational data leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=144)
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation via transapical access improve health-related quality of life compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 49.7% vs 62%
p-value: p=0.015
In high-risk patients, transapical TAVI achieves similar clinical outcomes and quality of life compared to surgical aortic valve replacement, with higher STS scores predicting worse QoL outcomes.
Amonn et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in High-risk patients referred for aortic valve replacement (n=144). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via transapical access (TA TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on SF-36 physical health metascore (p=0.015). Transapical TAVI achieved similar adjusted quality of life compared with SAVR, as an initial difference in SF-36 physical health metascore (49.7 vs 62.0, P=0.015) disappeared after adjustment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: