Two-year outcomes from the PARTNER 3 trial: where do we stand?

被引:12
|
作者
Moran, Hellmuth R. Muller [1 ,2 ]
Eikelboom, Rachel [1 ,2 ]
Lodewyks, Carly [1 ,2 ]
Yan, Weiang [1 ,2 ]
Zelentsov, Ivan [1 ,2 ]
Arora, Rakesh C. [1 ,2 ]
Yamashita, Michael H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manitoba, Max Rady Coll Med, Dept Surg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[2] St Boniface Gen Hosp, Cardiac Sci Program, Y3519,409 Tache Ave, Winnipeg, MB R2H 2A6, Canada
关键词
randomized controlled trials; surgical aortic valve replacement; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; AORTIC-VALVE-REPLACEMENT; SUBCLINICAL LEAFLET THROMBOSIS; TRANSCATHETER; BIOPROSTHESIS; OCTOGENARIANS; ASSOCIATION; DURABILITY; RESIDENTS; SOCIETY;
D O I
10.1097/HCO.0000000000000813
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose of review The PARTNER 3 trial was conducted to compare outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a balloon-expandable valve and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in individuals at low surgical risk with aortic stenosis. Recently reported rates of death, stoke and valve thrombosis in the TAVR arm have raised concerns about the longevity of this intervention in low-risk individuals. It is incumbent on all members of the Heart Team to understand the potential consequences of these findings. Recent findings TAVR was initially superior to SAVR at 1 year for a primary composite endpoint of death, stroke and rehospitalization. Results at 2 years now indicate noninferiority. Potential causative factors, comparisons with other transcatheter valves and implications for patients, providers and trainees are explored. Recommendations are additionally provided regarding TAVR and SAVR in individuals with aortic stenosis. Concerns regarding the longevity of TAVR in low-risk individuals notwithstanding, results from PARTNER 3 indicate that TAVR is at least noninferior to SAVR out to 2 years. Longer follow-up will be required to determine whether these newly founded concerns are justifiable.
引用
收藏
页码:141 / 147
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 trial: where do we stand?
    Katsiki, Niki
    Mikhailidis, Dimitri P.
    Tsioufis, Costas
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN LIPIDOLOGY, 2017, 28 (01) : 88 - 89
  • [2] Assessment for intimate partner violence: Where do we stand?
    Janssen, Patricia
    Dascal-Weichhendler, Hagit
    McGregor, Margaret
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2006, 19 (04) : 413 - 415
  • [3] Omega 3: Where do we stand?
    Versari D.
    Daghini E.
    Salvetti G.
    Salvetti A.
    [J]. High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention, 2008, 15 (4) : 225 - 230
  • [4] Where do we stand on neuroprotection? Where do we go from here?
    Shoulson, I
    [J]. MOVEMENT DISORDERS, 1998, 13 : 46 - 48
  • [5] Two decades of supertasting: Where do we stand?
    Hayes, John E.
    Keast, Russell S. J.
    [J]. PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR, 2011, 104 (05) : 1072 - 1074
  • [6] Two-Year Outcomes in the IVAN Trial
    Chakravarthy, Usha
    Harding, Simon P.
    Rogers, Chris A.
    Downes, Susan M.
    Lotery, Andrew J.
    Culliford, Lucy A.
    Reeves, Barnaby C.
    [J]. OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2013, 230 : 5 - 6
  • [7] Where do we stand?
    Catt, Graham
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL, 2008, 86 (07) : N8 - N8
  • [8] Where do we stand?
    不详
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, 2010, 59 (03) : 79 - 86
  • [9] Where do we stand?
    Thompson, ID
    [J]. FORESTRY CHRONICLE, 2003, 79 (03): : 381 - 382
  • [10] WHERE DO WE STAND
    MCMILLAN, B
    [J]. IRE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, 1957, 3 (03): : 173 - 174