In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, the higher rate of survival with a self-expanding TAVR compared with surgery was sustained at 2 years. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

Patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery had improved 3-year clinical outcomes after TAVR compared with surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamics were more favorable in TAVR patients without differences in structural valve deterioration. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve(®) System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

No abstract

No abstract

The safety and efficacy results of this study support the use of the Evolut PRO System for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients who are at increased surgical risk, resulting in excellent hemodynamics and minimal paravalvular leak (The Medtronic TAVR 2.0 US Clinical Study; NCT02738853).

In patients with high surgical risk and severe aortic stenosis, severe PPM is more common in patients treated with SAVR than those treated with TAVR. Patients with severe PPM are a greater risk for death and acute kidney injury than patients without severe PPM.

Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality of life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Objectives To compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), SF-12, and EQ-5D; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1-month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort; however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the SF-12 physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR.