Comparison of a Complete Percutaneous versus Surgical Approach to Aortic Valve Replacement and Revascularization in Patients at Intermediate Surgical Risk: Results from the Randomized SURTAVI Trial.
Clicks: 336
ID: 39705
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
64.9
/100
336 views
231 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #7 of 19 articles by views in Circulation
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
For patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD), the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared to the standard surgical approach.The prospective SURTAVI trial enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe AS from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to need for revascularization and then randomized to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The primary endpoint was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at two years.Of 1,660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher STS risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% vs 4.4±1.5%; p<0.01) and were more likely to be male (65.1% vs 54.2%; p<0.01) than the 1,328 patients not assigned to revascularization. After randomization to treatment, there were 169 TAVR and PCI patients, 163 SAVR and CABG patients, 695 TAVR patients, and 633 SAVR patients. No significant difference in the rate of the primary endpoint was found between TAVR and PCI and SAVR and CABG (16.0%; 95% CI 11.1 - 22.9 vs. 14.0%; 95% CI 9.2 - 21.1; p=0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI 9.5 - 14.7 vs. 12.3%; 95% CI 9.8 - 15.4; p=0.76).For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe AS and non-complex CAD (SYNTAX score ≤ 22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and PCI is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and CABG.URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT01586910.
| Reference Key |
sndergaard2019comparisoncirculation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Søndergaard, Lars;Popma, Jeffrey J;Reardon, Michael J;Van Mieghem, Nicolas M;Deeb, G Michael;Kodali, Susheel;George, Isaac;Williams, Mathew R;Yakubov, Steven J;Kappetein, Arie P;Serruys, Patrick W;Grube, Eberhard;Schiltgen, Molly B;Chang, Yanping;Engstrøm, Thomas;, ; |
| Journal | Circulation |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039564
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.