Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgery in Women at High Risk for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (from the CoreValve US High Risk Pivotal Trial).
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in women after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a self-expanding prosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at high risk for SAVR. Although registries and meta-analyses have suggested that TAVR is of considerable benefit in women, perhaps even more so than in men, a rigorous evaluation of TAVR with a self-expanding valve versus SAVR in women from a randomized trial has not been performed. Patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized 1:1 to either TAVR or SAVR. Outcomes at 1 year are reported. Treatment was attempted in a total of 353 women (183 TAVR and 170 SAVR). Baseline characteristics and predicted risk of the 2 groups were comparable, although the frequency of diabetes mellitus was lower in patients undergoing TAVR (33.3% vs 45.3%; p = 0.02). TAVR-treated patients experienced a statistically significant 1-year survival advantage compared with SAVR patients (12.7% vs 21.8%; p = 0.03). The composite all-cause mortality or major stroke rate also favored TAVR (14.9% vs 24.2%; p = 0.04). Quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score, for both the TAVR and SAVR groups increased significantly from baseline to 1 year. In conclusion, female TAVR patients had lower 1-year mortality and lower 1-year all-cause mortality or major stroke compared with women undergoing SAVR, with both cohorts experiencing improved quality of life. Further studies specifically in women are warranted to validate these findings.
