Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of a Complete Percutaneous Versus Surgical Approach to Aortic Valve Replacement and Revascularization in Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk Results From the Randomized SURTAVI Trial

Authors :
Eberhard Grube
Isaac George
Mathew R. Williams
Steven J. Yakubov
Yanping Chang
Molly Schiltgen
Arie Pieter Kappetein
G. Michael Deeb
Nicolas M. Van Mieghem
Jeffrey J. Popma
Lars Søndergaard
Susheel Kodali
Thomas Engstrøm
Patrick W. Serruys
Michael J. Reardon
Cardiology
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Source :
Circulation, 140(16), 1296-1305. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Publication Year :
2019
Publisher :
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2019.

Abstract

Background: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared with the standard surgical approach. Methods: The prospective SURTAVI trial (Safety and Efficiency Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement) enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial) >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to the need for revascularization and then randomly assigned to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Results: Of 1660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% versus 4.4±1.5%; P P P =0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI, 9.5–14.7 versus 12.3%; 95% CI, 9.8–15.4; P =0.76). Conclusions: For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and noncomplex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score ≤22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01586910.

Details

ISSN :
15244539 and 00097322
Volume :
140
Issue :
16
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Circulation
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....dbeab9a25d95e27a7d4ad0b41b2d3682
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.118.039564