Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024
Effect of Valve Type and Anesthesia Strategy for TAVR: 5-Year Results of the SOLVE-TAVI Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Feistritzer Hans-Josef, Kurz Thomas, Vonthein Reinhard, Schröder Leonie, Stachel Georg, Eitel Ingo, Marquetand Christoph, Saraei Roza, Kirchhof Eva, Heringlake Matthias, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Desch Steffen, Thiele Holger, SOLVE-TAVI Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the randomized SOLVE-TAVI (compariSon of secOnd-generation seLf-expandable vs. balloon-expandable Valves and gEneral vs. local anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial comparing newer-generation self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV), as well as conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA), clinical outcomes were similar both for valve and anesthesia comparison at 30 days and 1 year. Prosthesis durability may affect clinical outcomes during long-term follow-up. Moreover, the impact of the anesthesia strategy on long-term clinical outcomes is unknown so far.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare clinical outcomes during 5-year follow-up in the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.
METHODS: In the randomized, multicenter, 2 × 2 factorial, open-label SOLVE-TAVI trial, 447 intermediate- to high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using either SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic) or BEV (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences) and also to CS vs GA. Patients were followed-up for 5 years.
RESULTS: During 5 years of follow-up, the combined predefined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and permanent pacemaker implantation was similar in the SEV and BEV groups (67.7% vs 63.4%; HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.13; P = 0.34). Stroke rates at 5 years were lower in the SEV group (2.2% vs 9.6%; HR: 4.84; 95% CI: 1.65-14.18; P = 0.002). Regarding the anesthesia comparison, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury occurred in 51.4% in the CS group and 61.3% in the GA group (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62-1.04; P = 0.09). All-cause mortality at 5 years was lower for CS (41.5% vs 54.3%; HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVR using either SEV and BEV as well as CS and GA showed similar clinical outcomes at 5 years using a combined clinical endpoint.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare clinical outcomes during 5-year follow-up in the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.
METHODS: In the randomized, multicenter, 2 × 2 factorial, open-label SOLVE-TAVI trial, 447 intermediate- to high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using either SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic) or BEV (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences) and also to CS vs GA. Patients were followed-up for 5 years.
RESULTS: During 5 years of follow-up, the combined predefined endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage, and permanent pacemaker implantation was similar in the SEV and BEV groups (67.7% vs 63.4%; HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.13; P = 0.34). Stroke rates at 5 years were lower in the SEV group (2.2% vs 9.6%; HR: 4.84; 95% CI: 1.65-14.18; P = 0.002). Regarding the anesthesia comparison, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and acute kidney injury occurred in 51.4% in the CS group and 61.3% in the GA group (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62-1.04; P = 0.09). All-cause mortality at 5 years was lower for CS (41.5% vs 54.3%; HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVR using either SEV and BEV as well as CS and GA showed similar clinical outcomes at 5 years using a combined clinical endpoint.