Publication

Comparison of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis

Downloadable Content

Persistent URL
Last modified
  • 05/22/2025
Type of Material
Authors
    Rebecca T. Hahn, Columbia UniversityPhilippe Pibarot, Laval UniversityWilliam J. Stewart, Cleveland Clinic FoundationNeil J. Weissman, Medstar Washington Hospital CenterDeepika Gopalakrishnan, Medical City DallasMartin G. Keane, University of PennsylvaniaSaif Anwaruddin, University of PennsylvaniaZueyue Wang, Medstar Washington Hospital CenterMartin Bilsker, University of MiamiBrian R. Lindman, Washington UniversityHoward C. Herrmann, University of PennsylvaniaSusheel K. Kodali, Columbia UniversityVinod Thourani, Emory UniversityLars G. Svensson, Cleveland Clinic FoundationJodi J. Akin, Edwards LifesciencesWilliam N. Anderson, Edwards LifesciencesMartin Leon, Columbia UniversityPamela S. Douglas, Duke University
Language
  • English
Date
  • 2013-06-25
Publisher
  • Elsevier: 12 months
Publication Version
Copyright Statement
  • © 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Published by Elsevier Inc.
License
Final Published Version (URL)
Title of Journal or Parent Work
ISSN
  • 0735-1097
Volume
  • 61
Issue
  • 25
Start Page
  • 2514
End Page
  • 2521
Supplemental Material (URL)
Abstract
  • Objectives: This study sought to compare echocardiographic findings in patients with critical aortic stenosis following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background: The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial randomized patients 1:1 to SAVR or TAVR. Methods: Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after the procedure and analyzed in a core laboratory. For the analysis of post-implantation variables, the first interpretable study (≤6 months) was used. Results: Both groups showed a decrease in aortic valve gradients and increase in effective orifice area (EOA) (p < 0.0001), which remained stable over 2 years. Compared with SAVR, TAVR resulted in larger indexed EOA (p = 0.038), less prosthesis-patient mismatch (p = 0.019), and more total and paravalvular aortic regurgitation (p < 0.0001). Baseline echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were lower peak transaortic gradient in TAVR patients, and low left ventricular diastolic volume, low stroke volume, and greater severity of mitral regurgitation in SAVR patients. Post-implantation echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were: larger left ventricular diastolic volume, left ventricular systolic volume and EOA, decreased ejection fraction, and greater aortic regurgitation in TAVR patients; and smaller left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes, low stroke volume, smaller EOA, and prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR patients. Conclusions: Patients randomized to either SAVR or TAVR experience enduring, significant reductions in transaortic gradients and increase in EOA. Compared with SAVR, TAVR patients had higher indexed EOA, lower prosthesis-patient mismatch, and more aortic regurgitation. Univariate predictors of death for the TAVR and SAVR groups differed and might allow future refinement in patient selection.
Author Notes
  • Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, NY 10032, Tel: 212-305-7060, Fax: 212-342-3660, rth2@columbia.edu.
Keywords
Research Categories
  • Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery

Tools

Relations

In Collection:

Items