Key result
In high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, 1-year all-cause mortality was 21% with TAVI, 20% with AVR, and 38% with medical treatment (P=0.051).
Why the study?
Does TAVI or AVR improve clinical outcomes compared to medical treatment in high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis?
Population
163 high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis referred to a single tertiary centre for heart…
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation or… vs Medical treatment (n=55)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
May support TAVI or AVR over medical therapy in high-risk aortic stenosis; leaves open randomized confirmation of survival benefit.
Cohort (n=163)
No
Does TAVI or AVR improve clinical outcomes compared to medical treatment in high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 21% vs 20%
p-value: p=0.051
In high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, TAVI and AVR offer similar 1-year survival which is better than medical treatment alone, with TAVI showing a better 30-day safety profile than AVR.
Dubois et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (n=163). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and medical treatment was evaluated on All-cause mortality at 1 year (p=0.051). In high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, 1-year all-cause mortality was 21% with TAVI, 20% with AVR, and 38% with medical treatment (P=0.051).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: