scholarly journals CRT-600.21 Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low- to Intermediate-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. S53-S54
Author(s):  
Muhammad Faisal Khalid ◽  
Ghulam Murtaza ◽  
Muhammad T. Ayub ◽  
Varun Kohli ◽  
Jayant Bagai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients

scholarly journals Future Therapy for Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis—A Provider Survey

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Aisha Ahmed ◽  
Emmanouil S Brilakis ◽  
Karol Mudy ◽  
Benjamin Sun ◽  
Paul Sorajja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve In Valve

With the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients, we sought to explore current implanters' predictions on the future of this therapy by sending a survey to a sample of 8,261 healthcare professionals using Internet-based software. The survey contained six questions regarding physician specialty and experience, transcatheter aortic valve replacement age cutoff, optimal treatment for low-risk patients, transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve sequence, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement concerns. The majority, 29% percent, of all respondents felt that transcatheter aortic valve replacement will become the first-choice therapy for all patients, regardless of age and 70% felt that the optimal treatment would be transcatheter aortic valve replacement, with transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve-in-valve if the first valve degenerates. Regarding the sequence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement valves, 78% preferred the Edwards Sapien 3 valve (ES-3) as the first transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve followed by either a second ES-3 or Medtronic Evolut valve. Despite the high acceptance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, many respondents (56%) felt that surgical aortic valve replacement might still remain the preferred treatment in low-risk patients due to an unknown durability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement valves. A majority of implanters see transcatheter aortic valve replacement followed by valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the first-line therapy for low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, but long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an unanswered concern.

P5986Clinical outcomes of age in patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Munoz-Garcia ◽  
M Munoz-Garcia ◽  
A J Munoz Garcia ◽  
F Carrasco-Chinchilla ◽  
A J Dominguez-Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Abstract Transcatheter Aortic valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients considered at high or prohibitive operative risk. It is widely known the short and mid-term outcomes, however, is limited about long-term outcomes in according to age. The aim of this study was to determine the survival and the clinical outcomes on based of age. after TAVR with the CoreValve prosthesis. Methods From April 2008 to December 2017, the CoreValve and Sapiens 3 prosthesis were implanted in 667 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with deemed high risk on base to age, <80 years and ≥80 years old Results The mean age in patients <80 compared with ≥80 years, was 73.6±7 vs. 83.4±2.8 years and the logistic EuroSCORE and STS score were 16.3±11% vs. 18.1±11%. In-hospital mortality was 3.4%, and the combined endpoint of death, vascular complications, myocardial infarction, majopr bleeding or stroke had a rate of 18.3%. The late mortality (beyond 30 days) was 40.5%. When compared both groups, there were no differences for the presence of threatening bleeding 3.5% vs. 3.6% (HR = 1.033 [IC95% 0.452–2.360], p=0.557), myocardial infarction4.2% vs. 2.9% (HR = 0.67 [IC95% 0.290–1,530], p=0.0.226), stroke 8.9% vs. 9.4% (HR = 1.067 [IC95% 0.625–1.821], p=0.814) and mortality 44.5% vs. 41.1% (HR=0.971388 [IC95% 0.639–1.188], p=0.214) and there was difference in between groups in hospitalizations for heart failure 13.8% vs. 7.7% (HR = 1.374 [IC95% 1.037–1.821], p=0.008. Survival at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 were similar in both groups (86.9% vs. 89.8%, 78.4 vs. 78.3%, 65.5 vs. 72.5%, 57.9% vs. 62.8% and 51.1 vs. 52.8%>; log Rank 0.992, p=0.319), respectively, after a mean follow-up of 43.9±27 months. Conclusions TAVR is associated with significant survival benefit throughout 3.2 years of follow-up. Survival during follow-up was similar in patients with <80 compared with ≥80 years old.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document