Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a balloon-expandable valve improve outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in individuals at low surgical risk with aortic stenosis?
While TAVR was superior to SAVR at 1 year in low-risk aortic stenosis patients, 2-year outcomes indicate noninferiority, with emerging concerns regarding valve longevity and thrombosis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The PARTNER 3 trial was conducted to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a balloon-expandable valve and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in individuals at low surgical risk with aortic stenosis. Recently reported rates of death, stoke and valve thrombosis in the TAVR arm have raised concerns about the longevity of this intervention in low-risk individuals. It is incumbent on all members of the Heart Team to understand the potential consequences of these findings. RECENT FINDINGS: TAVR was initially superior to SAVR at 1 year for a primary composite endpoint of death, stroke and rehospitalization. Results at 2 years now indicate noninferiority. Potential causative factors, comparisons with other transcatheter valves and implications for patients, providers and trainees are explored. Recommendations are additionally provided regarding TAVR and SAVR in individuals with aortic stenosis. SUMMARY: Concerns regarding the longevity of TAVR in low-risk individuals notwithstanding, results from PARTNER 3 indicate that TAVR is at least noninferior to SAVR out to 2 years. Longer follow-up will be required to determine whether these newly founded concerns are justifiable.
Moran et al. (2020) studied this question.