In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

Treatment Assignment of High-Risk Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients Referred for Transcatheter-AorticValve-Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an option for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis whose co-morbidities place them at high surgical risk. However, little is known regarding treatment allocation. From May 2008 to May 2011, all high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis referred to an experienced single-center TAVI clinic were reviewed. A total of 170 consecutive patients were evaluated. Of these, 58 (34%) were accepted for TAVI (mean age 81 ± 8 years). Thirty-three patients (19%) were accepted for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR; mean age 83 ± 6 years). Sixty-two patients (37%) were treated conservatively (mean age 83 ± 6 years). Seventeen patients (10%) died awaiting complete assessment. At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 10% in the TAVI group, 3% in the conventional AVR group, and 32% in the conservatively treated group. Multivariate-adjustment identified the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.98, p <0.05) and the absence of frailty (hazard ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.55, p <0.01) as independent predictors of conventional AVR. In conclusion, of the high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis referred for TAVI at a large single center, approximately 1/2 were accepted for intervention (conventional AVR or TAVI), and roughly 1/3 were treated conservatively.

Notes to editor

American journal of cardiology 2013;112(1),100-103
The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.