No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUNDPrevious trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aorticvalve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODSWe randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTSThe rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P = 0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.25). In the transfemoralaccess cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = 0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONSIn intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.) a bs tr ac t

No abstract

No abstract

Among appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVR reduced the rates of death and hospitalization, with a decrease in symptoms and an improvement in valve hemodynamics that were sustained at 2 years of follow-up. The presence of extensive coexisting conditions may attenuate the survival benefit of TAVR. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

IMPORTANCEThe role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is hotly debated. There have been recommendations to discontinue these medications, which are essential in the treatment of several chronic disease conditions, while, in the absence of clinical evidence, professional societies have advocated their continued use. OBJECTIVE To study the association between use of ACEIs/ARBs with the likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 and to study outcome data in subsets of patients taking ACEIs/ARBs who tested positive with severity of clinical outcomes of COVID-19 (eg, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and requirement for mechanical ventilation). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. All patients tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12, 2020, were included. EXPOSURES History of taking ACEIs or ARBs at the time of COVID-19 testing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Results of COVID-19 testing in the entire cohort, number of patients requiring hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and mechanical ventilation among those who tested positive.RESULTS A total of 18 472 patients tested for COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 49 (21) years, 7384 (40%) were male, and 12 725 (69%) were white. Of 18 472 patients who underwent COVID-19 testing, 2285 (12.4%) were taking either ACEIs or ARBs. A positive COVID-19 test result was observed in 1735 of 18 472 patients (9.4%). Among patients who tested positive, 421 (24.3%) were admitted to the hospital, 161 (9.3%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 111 (6.4%) required mechanical ventilation. Overlap propensity score weighting showed no significant association of ACEI and/or ARB use with COVID-19 test positivity (overlap propensity score-weighted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study found no association between ACEI or ARB use and COVID-19 test positivity. These clinical data support current professional society guidelines to not discontinue ACEIs or ARBs in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further study in larger numbers of hospitalized patients receiving ACEI and ARB therapy is needed to determine the association with clinical measures of COVID-19 severity.

No abstract