Almost 700 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were considered “high risk” for conventional valve replacement (AVR) were randomized to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or AVR.<\/p>\n
In comparison to AVR, TAVI was associated with a higher incidence of stroke (5.1% vs 2.4% at one year), vascular complications (11.0% vs 3.2% at 30 days), and moderate-severe perivalvular leak (6.8% vs 1.9% at one year), with no mortality<\/em><\/strong> (24.2% vs. 26.8% at one year) or clinical benefit. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Yet the lead investigator touts TAVI as an “excellent alternative” to AVR because it was associated with less atrial fibrillation (8.6% vs 16%) and bleeding (9.3% vs 19.5%).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n This is an interesting conclusion, since most physicians and patients are more concerned about periprocedural stroke and vascular complications than atrial fibrillation or transfusions.<\/p>\n In \u201chigh-risk\u201d patients eligible for AVR, is TAVI really a PARTNER or a blind date (\u201cThanks, but no thanks\u201d)? <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>Will you offer TAVI to your \u201chigh-risk\u201d aortic stenosis patients as an \u201cexcellent alternative\u201d to AVR?<\/strong><\/p>\n View our news coverage of the PARTNER A trial here<\/a>, and for more of our ACC.11 coverage of late-breaking clinical trials, interviews with the authors of the most important research, and blogs from our fellows on the most interesting presentations at the meeting, check out our Coverage Roundup<\/a>. Almost 700 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were considered “high risk” for conventional valve replacement (AVR) were randomized to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or AVR. In comparison to AVR, TAVI was associated with a higher incidence of stroke (5.1% vs 2.4% at one year), vascular complications (11.0% vs 3.2% at 30 days), and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":214,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,9],"tags":[423],"class_list":["post-7364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-interventional-cardiology","tag-tavi"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/214"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7364\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"