Role of Multimodality Imaging in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The treatment of aortic stenosis (AS) has reached an exciting stage with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). It is the treatment of choice in patients with severe AS who are considered very high risk for surgical valve replacement. Multimodality imaging (MMI) plays a crucial role in TAVR patient selection, intra‐procedure guidance, and follow‐up. With the ever‐increasing scope for TAVR, a better understanding of MMI is essential to improve outcomes and prevent complications.     

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and heart failure

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) and heart failure (HF) represent an important and high-risk group of patients who are often referred for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) due to high risk for surgical intervention. Thus far, randomized controlled trials have shown comparable outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe AS and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In the current review, we will discuss (1) the pathophysiology of HF in patients with severe AS, (2) role of imaging modalities in management, (3) role of biomarkers of HF on prognosis, (4) impact of other valvular heart diseases, (5) evidence from the contemporary trials on the role of TAVR in patients with severe AS and HF, and (6) future directions and research.     

Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: The Benchmark for Percutaneous Therapies

Historically, many patients with severe senile calcific aortic valve stenosis (AS) were not offered surgery, largely due to the perception that the risks of operation were prohibitive. Such patients have subsequently been formally designated as ‘high risk’ or ‘inoperable’ with respect to their suitability for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the evolving lexicon of heart valve disease. The recent availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents an alternative treatment option, and permits the opportunity to re-examine algorithms for assessing operative risk. As the experience with TAVR grows, expanded use in new patient populations can be anticipated. While TAVR in high risk AS patients has demonstrated benefits, the emerging indication in intermediate AS is less clear and conclusions will necessarily await the availability of results from ongoing clinical trials. This article will discuss current outcomes for SAVR among high- and intermediate-risk patients with AS as a barometer in assessing the results of nascent percutaneous therapies.     

Sex-Specific Considerations in Women with Aortic Stenosis and Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in the elderly and is associated with poor outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Herein, we describe the gender-related differences in baseline characteristics and pathophysiologic response to severe AS, imaging considerations unique to females, and short- and long-term outcomes after TAVR. Women undergoing TAVR are older and frailer, have less cardiovascular comorbidities, smaller femoral artery size, better left ventricular systolic function, hypertrophied and small left ventricles leading to a higher incidence of paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS, and a greater prevalence of porcelain aorta, smaller aortic annulus size, and lower coronary ostia heights. Imaging and histopathological data also suggests a sex-related myocardial response to pressure overload from AS. Women experience more vascular complications and blood transfusion requirements, serious procedural complications, and a greater incidence of stroke, but have better long-term outcomes than men. Patient-prosthesis mismatch, which is a concern in patients with a small aortic annulus size undergoing SAVR, has not been problematic with TAVR. The aforementioned findings suggest that TAVR may be preferable for women with severe AS. Further studies are warranted to directly compare TAVR with SAVR in women.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: 2015 in Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an attractive option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are either at high risk or extreme risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This article summarizes the major advances in TAVR that were published or reported in 2015. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:27–46)

     

Workup and Management of Patients With Paradoxical Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

About 60% of patients with paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient (PLF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) have a severe disease that justifies aortic valve replacement (AVR). The first step in patients with symptomatic PLF AS should be to rule out measurement errors and treat hypertension. The second step is to distinguish pseudo-severe from true severe AS (TSAS). The third step is to select the optimal treatment modality at the right time. Regarding the second step, projected aortic valve area calculated using stress echocardiography is superior to traditional severity criteria (AVA <?1.0 cm² and mean gradient ≥?40 mmHg) to unmask TSAS and predict outcomes. Aortic valve calcification score quantitated by computed tomography is helpful to identify TSAS by applying thresholds of 2000 and 1200 AU, respectively, for men and women. This modality should be considered, particularly if stress echocardiography is either not feasible or inconclusive. Once AS severity is confirmed, a risk stratification based on symptomatic status and the importance of left ventricular (LV) systolic impairment will guide therapeutic decision. Symptomatic assessment should not solely rely on patient-reported symptom status, but rather include an objective exercise test. The presence of symptomatic PLF-LG TSAS is a class IIa indication for AVR in the guidelines. In asymptomatic patients, a markedly reduced stroke volume, the presence of myocardial fibrosis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, a poor longitudinal LV function as assessed by speckle tracking echocardiography, and/or a moderate to severe LV diastolic dysfunction are predictors of poor outcome in PLF-LG patients and may indicate the need of early AVR. The type of AVR should be discussed within a multidisciplinary team, bearing in mind that transcatheter AVR (TAVR) is superior to medical treatment in inoperable patients. Furthermore, TAVR may be a useful alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of TAVR, including the lower risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch, should be weighed against the risk of paravalvular regurgitation, which is likely poorly tolerated by patients with PLF-LG who often harbor a small and non-compliant LV cavity.     

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis in Women: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

Aortic stenosis (AS), 1 of the most common valve diseases in developed countries, carries a poor prognosis if left untreated. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care for high-risk and inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Women represent a significant proportion of patients with severe AS and demonstrate specific clinical, anatomic, and pathophysiological features that are evident both before and after valve replacement. In this review, we discuss these features as well as the outcomes of women undergoing TAVR for AS.     

Patient Evaluation and Selection for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Heart Team Approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to significantly impact mortality and quality of life in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are deemed high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Essential to these outcomes is proper patient selection. The multidisciplinary TAVR heart team was created to provide comprehensive patient evaluation and aid in proper selection. This review with outline the history and components of the heart team, and delineate the team’s role in risk and frailty assessment, evaluation of common co-morbidities that impact outcomes, and the complex multi-modality imaging necessary for procedural planning and patient selection. The heart team is critical in determining patient eligibility and benefit and the optimal operative approach for TAVR. The future of structural heart disease will certainly require a team approach, and the TAVR heart team will serve as the successful model.     

Is it really “paradoxical” or just the ventricle?

• Patients with paradoxical low flow low gradient (PLFLG) aortic stenosis (AS) have favorable mid‐term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). These outcomes were comparable to those patients with high gradient AS (HGAS).
• Clinicians should avoid delaying referral of patients with PLFLG AS for valve replacement for either surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or TAVR.
• Further studies are need to understand the increased early mortality after TAVR in PLFLG AS compared to HGAS, and to determine whether improvements of TAVR procedural techniques can result in better outcomes.

     

Prognostic Significance of LGE by CMR in Aortic Stenosis Patients Undergoing Valve Replacement

Background

Prior studies have shown that late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can detect focal fibrosis in aortic stenosis (AS), suggesting that it might predict higher mortality risk.

Objectives

This study was conducted to evaluate whether LGE-CMR can predict post-operative survival in patients with severe AS undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

We prospectively evaluated survival (all-cause and cardiovascular disease related) according to LGE-CMR status in 154 consecutive AS patients (96 men; mean age: 74 ± 6 years) without a history of myocardial infarction undergoing surgical AVR and in 40 AS patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Results

LGE was present in 29% of patients undergoing surgical AVR and in 50% undergoing TAVR. During a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 21 patients undergoing surgical AVR and 20 undergoing TAVR died. In surgical AVR, the presence of LGE predicted higher post-operative mortality (odds ratio: 10.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2 to 100.0; p = 0.02) and worse all-cause survival (73% vs. 88%; p = 0.02 by log-rank test) and cardiovascular disease related survival (85% vs. 95%; p = 0.03 by log-rank test) on 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival after surgical AVR. Multivariate Cox analysis identified the presence of LGE (hazard ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.3 to 6.9; p = 0.025) and New York Heart Association functional class III/IV (hazard ratio: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 8.1; p < 0.01) as the sole independent predictors of all-cause mortality after surgical AVR. The presence of LGE also predicted higher all-cause mortality (p = 0.05) and cardiovascular disease related mortality (p = 0.03) in the subgroup of patients without angiographic coronary artery disease (n = 110) and higher cardiovascular disease related mortality in 25 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR.

Conclusions

The presence of LGE indicating focal fibrosis or unrecognized infarct by CMR is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with AS undergoing AVR and could provide additional information in the pre-operative evaluation of risk in these patients.     

Health Status After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk: Results From the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).BackgroundIn 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.MethodsBetween 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, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time.ResultsOver 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 Short-Form 12 Questionnaire’s physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points.ConclusionsHealth 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. (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)     

Stroke associated with surgical and transcatheter treatment of aortic stenosis: a comprehensive review

Stroke is a potential complication of treating patients with aortic stenosis via surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and balloon aortic valvuloplasty. Because there are limited and heterogeneous data on the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of stroke among patients being treated for aortic stenosis, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature. The risk of stroke after AVR in the general population is approximately 1.5%, and the risk is increased (to approximately 2% to 4%) in older and higher-risk patients. Strokes were reported in 1.5% to 6% of patients treated with TAVR, and in the only randomized trial of AVR versus TAVR, there was an increased risk of 30-day strokes (minor and major strokes and transient ischemic attacks) with TAVR (5.5% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.04).     

Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients <60 Years of Age

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative therapeutic modality to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). In the current analysis, we compare the characteristics and outcomes of AVR procedures in patients <60 years of age.MethodsWe queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database for all AVR hospitalizations in patients 18–59 years of age between January 2012 and December 2017. We performed a propensity score matching analysis (1:1) and compared baseline characteristics, procedural complications, and outcomes between TAVR and SAVR patients.ResultsA total of 72,356 hospitalizations for AVR were identified in patients <60 years of age. Compared to their SAVR counterparts, TAVR patients were older (52.5 ± 7.6) vs. 48.8 ± 9.6, p < 0.001), more likely to be women (37.9% vs. 28.0%, p < 0.001), and have history of prior radiation (8.3% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001).After propensity score matching, TAVR patients had lower procedural complications, but a similar mortality rate compared to SAVR patients (2.9% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.77). TAVR was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay [4 [2–9] vs. 6 [5–11], p < 0.001), but no significant difference in the 30-day readmission rate was noted (16.2% vs. 16.8%, p-value = 0.49).ConclusionOur study demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes in younger patients undergoing TAVR, which improved over time. Further investigation of long-term outcomes in TAVR performed younger patients is warranted to draw a comprehensive picture of TAVR safety and efficacy in low-risk patients.     

Impact of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on survival in patients with each subclass of low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) and to compare outcomes following surgical AVR (SAVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR).BackgroundLG severe AS encompasses a wide variety of pathophysiology, including classical low-flow, LG (LF-LG), paradoxical LF-LG, and normal-flow, LG (NF-LG) AS, and uncertainty exists regarding the impact of AVR on each subclass of LG AS.MethodsPubMed and Embase were queried through October 2020 to identify studies comparing survival with different management strategies (SAVR, TAVR, and conservative) in patients with LG AS. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing AVR versus conservative management and network meta-analysis comparing SAVR versus TAVR versus conservative management were performed.ResultsThirty-two studies with a total of 6,515 patients and a median follow-up time of 24.2 months (interquartile range: 36.5 months) were included. AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.48), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.57), and NF-LG (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62) AS compared with conservative management. SAVR and TAVR were each associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality in classical LF-LG (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38 to 0.55] and 0.49 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64], respectively), paradoxical LF-LG (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28 to 0.65] and 0.42 [95% CI: 0.25 to 0.72], respectively), and NF-LG (HR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.21 to 0.77] and 0.46 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.84], respectively) AS compared with conservative management. No significant difference was observed between SAVR and TAVR.ConclusionsIn all subclasses of LG AS, AVR was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality regardless of surgical or transcatheter approach.     

5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare 5-year cardiovascular, renal, and bioprosthetic valve durability outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe AS and CKD undergoing TAVR or SAVR are a challenging, understudied clinical subset.MethodsIntermediate-risk patients with moderate to severe CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/m²) from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A trial (patients randomly assigned to SAPIEN XT TAVR or SAVR) and SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry were pooled. The composite primary outcome of death, stroke, rehospitalization, and new hemodialysis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Patients with and without perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) were followed through 5 years. A core laboratory–adjudicated analysis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure was also performed.ResultsThe study population included 1,045 TAVR patients (512 SAPIEN XT, 533 SAPIEN 3) and 479 SAVR patients. At 5 years, SAVR was better than SAPIEN XT TAVR (52.8% vs 68.0%; P = 0.04) but similar to SAPIEN 3 TAVR (52.8% vs 58.7%; P = 0.89). Perioperative AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR (26.3% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001) and was independently associated with long-term outcomes. Compared with SAVR, bioprosthetic valve failure and stage 2 or 3 structural valve deterioration were significantly greater for SAPIEN XT TAVR (P < 0.05) but not for SAPIEN 3 TAVR.ConclusionsIn intermediate-risk patients with AS and CKD, SAPIEN 3 TAVR and SAVR were associated with a similar risk for the primary endpoint at 5 years. AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR, and SAPIEN 3 valve durability was comparable with that of surgical bioprostheses.     

Cardiovascular Outcomes with Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundTAVR is an established treatment option in high and intermediate-risk patients with severe AS. There is less data regarding the efficacy of TAVR in low-risk patients. This meta-analysis evaluated efficacy and safety outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsDatabases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVR with SAVR for the treatment of low-risk patients with severe AS. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model.ResultsThe final analysis included 2953 patients from 5 studies. Compared to SAVR, TAVR was associated with similar mid-term mortality [OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.37–1.21; p = 0.18], as well as similar short-term mortality [OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.24–1.11; p = 0.09]. Randomization to TAVR was associated with a reduced risk of developing acute kidney injury [OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.13–0.52; p < 0.001], short-term major bleeding [OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.12–0.60; p < 0.001] and new-onset atrial fibrillation [OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.14–0.21; p < 0.001]. However, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of requiring permanent pacemaker implantation [OR 4.25; 95% CI 1.86–9.73; p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, endocarditis or aortic valve re-intervention between the two groups.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis showed that TAVR has similar clinical efficacy to SAVR, with a more favorable safety profile, in patients with severe AS who are at low-surgical risk.     

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the elderly. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard practice for treating severe, symptomatic AS, but recently new treatment options have emerged. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an established treatment option in patients at high surgical risk. In this review, we focus on recent developments and compare the two treatment methods in specific populations in terms of efficacy and safety (e.g., in patients with history of prior thoracic surgery, type of anesthesia employed, access site used or need for permanent pacing). The impact of comorbidities (pulmonary hypertension, arterial hypertension and obesity paradox), the cost-effectiveness of TAVR vs. SAVR and advances in transcatheter valve technology as well as issues that merit further investigation are further discussed. Moreover, outcomes and complications of TAVR in patients of different risk category (extremely high, high, intermediate and low risk) are analyzed. We strongly believe that during the following years, TAVR may evolve as the treatment of choice in a broader group of patients with symptomatic AS and beyond those with intermediate and high-risk features.     

Low-Risk Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement – An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectivesTo perform a meta-analysis including all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to date comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and low surgical risk.BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend SAVR for patients with severe symptomatic AS and low surgical risk. A few RCTs have evaluated TAVR in low surgical risk patients but equipoise exists related to TAVR valve durability, paravalvular leak (PVL) and role of TAVR in younger, low surgical risk patients.MethodsFive databases were analyzed from January-2000 to March-2019 for RCTs comparing SAVR to TAVR in low-risk severe AS patients.ResultsFour RCTs on low-risk TAVR patients with 2887 patients were included. Mean follow-up was ~24.1 ± 24 months. Early mortality was lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20–0.95, P = 0.038) whereas long-term mortality was similar (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.39–1.14, P = 0.141). Both early and long-term stroke rates were similar. TAVR was associated with lower risk of atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) and rehospitalization, but higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) and moderate or severe PVL. There was no difference in major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, endocarditis, aortic valve gradients and valve area at follow-up.ConclusionsIn low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR has a lower early mortality compared to SAVR with no difference in long-term mortality. Although complication rates varied between TAVR and SAVR, our study findings suggest that transfemoral-TAVR is an appropriate treatment option for severe symptomatic AS in patients with low surgical risk.     

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Rheumatic Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundPatients with rheumatic aortic stenosis (AS) were excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials.ObjectivesThe authors sought to examine outcomes with TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with rheumatic AS, and versus TAVR in nonrheumatic AS.MethodsThe authors identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR from October 2015 to December 2017, and then identified patients with rheumatic AS using prior validated International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 codes. Overlap propensity score weighting analysis was used to adjust for measured confounders. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. Multiple secondary outcomes were also examined.ResultsThe final study cohort included 1,159 patients with rheumatic AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 554; TAVR, n = 605), and 88,554 patients with nonrheumatic AS who underwent TAVR. Patients in the SAVR group were younger and with lower prevalence of most comorbidities and frailty scores. After median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range: 13 to 26 months), there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR versus SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-year; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 2.79; p = 0.2). Compared with TAVR in nonrheumatic AS, TAVR for rheumatic AS was associated with similar mortality (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.2) after median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11 to 24 months). None of the rheumatic TAVR patients, <11 SAVR patients, and 242 nonrheumatic TAVR patients underwent repeat aortic valve replacement (124 redo-TAVR and 118 SAVR) at follow-up.ConclusionsCompared with SAVR, TAVR could represent a viable and possibly durable option for patients with rheumatic AS.     

Can we still learn from single center experience after PARTNER?

With the publication of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has undoubtedly become the gold standard for severe aortic stenosis in patients that are not suitable candidate for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The PARTNER trial also showed that TAVR is non-inferior to AVR in high-risk patients. A recent publication by Ben-Dor et al evaluated the outcome of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who were referred to their institution for participation to the PARTNER trial. Only a minority of patients made it in the trial and the majority of patient ended being treated medically. Some patients were also treated with AVR outside the trial. The outcomes of all these patients were stratified by the treatment they received (AVR, TAVR or medical therapy with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty). The 3 groups were different in their baseline characteristics. Ben-Dor et al found that patients treated medically had greater mortality than patients treated with TAVR or AVR. The survival of patients treated with TAVR was similar to those treated with AVR. Independent predictors of mortality were also found from their analysis. In this commentary, we discuss the finding of this study and compare it withthe current literature.