Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the preferred therapy over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-or greaterrisk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS).Results from the 2 randomized trials comparing TAVR with SAVR in low-risk patients have been reported.1,2 The PARTNER 3 trial (The Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [P3]) that evaluated the Sapien 3 (S3) valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC) showed superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year in the primary composite outcome of mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization related to the procedure, valve, or heart failure (8.5% versus 15.1%, P=0.001).The Evolut Low Risk trial (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients [ELR]) that evaluated the Evolut valve (Medtronic Inc) showed the noninferiority of TAVR versus SAVR in the 2-year primary composite end point of mortality or disabling stroke (5.3% versus 6.7%).The 2 trials had similar patient characteristics, with mean age 74 years and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of operative mortality score 1.9% in both groups (Table).At 1 year, mortality rates were 1.0% TAVR versus 2.5% SAVR, P=0.09 in P3, and 2.3% versus 3.0%, log-rank P=0.41 in ELR.Disabling stroke rates trended lower with TAVR than with SAVR (0.2% versus 0.9%, P=0.14 in P3; 0.7% versus 2.4%, log-rank P=0.024 in ELR).In ELR, although no significant difference was found in the primary outcome, the composite outcome of mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization at 1 year showed that TAVR was superior (5.6% versus 10.2%, P=0.002).3 Thus, both trials showed that TAVR was superior to SAVR for clinical outcomes, with remarkable concordance between the 2 trials.Although both TAVR valves were associated with similar rates of new left bundle-branch block, the 1-year permanent pacemaker implantation rate was lower with S3 than Evolut (7.3% versus 19.4%), with differences likely attributed to device design and operator variability.The incidence of mild or greater paravalvular leak associated with S3 or Evolut valves was not different at 1 year (30.0% and 37.5%, respectively).Both TAVR devices had similarly low incidence of coronary obstruction, valve thrombosis, and aortic valve reintervention.However, S3 had a higher incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch than Evolut (8.3% versus 1.1%), likely because of valve design and sizing differences.This difference may be clinically important given the previously reported higher 1-year mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with severe mismatch after TAVR (mortality: 17.2% in severe versus 15.6% in moderate versus 15.9% in none, P=0.02).With TAVR showing superiority over SAVR, how should we select the ideal treatment of low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS?We believe both trials share certain conclusions but also raise new questions.First, in low-risk patients, SAVR has excellent outcomes but is limited by more new-onset atrial fibrillation than TAVR (at 1 year: 40.9% versus 7.0% in P3; 38.3% versus 9.8% in ELR).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".