RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The NOTION trial (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention) was designed to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients ≥70 years old with isolated severe aortic valve stenosis. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes are presented after 5 years. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 3 Nordic centers and randomized 1:1 to TAVR using the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis (n=145) or SAVR using any stented bioprostheses (n=135). The primary composite outcome was the rate of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 1 year defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar. The mean age was 79.1±4.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 3.0%±1.7%. After 5 years, there were no differences between TAVR and SAVR in the composite outcome (Kaplan-Meier estimates 38.0% versus 36.3%, log-rank test P=0.86) or any of its components. TAVR patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.7 cm2 versus 1.2 cm2, P<0.001) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (8.2 mm Hg versus 13.7 mm Hg, P<0.001), both unchanged over time. More TAVR patients had moderate/severe total aortic regurgitation (8.2% versus 0.0%, P<0.001) and a new pacemaker (43.7% versus 8.7%, P<0.001). Four patients had prosthetic reintervention and no difference was found for functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These are currently the longest follow-up data comparing TAVR and SAVR in lower risk patients, demonstrating no statistical difference for major clinical outcomes 5 years after TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared to SAVR. Higher rates of prosthetic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation were seen after TAVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01057173.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize all-comers with severe native aortic valve stenosis to either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), including a lower-risk patient population than previous trials. This article reports 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the NOTION trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-hundred eighty patients from 3 centers in Denmark and Sweden were randomized to either TAVR (n=145) or SAVR (n=135) with follow-up planned for 5 years. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 2 years between TAVR and SAVR (8.0% versus 9.8%, respectively; P=0.54) or cardiovascular mortality (6.5% versus 9.1%; P=0.40). The composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was also similar (15.8% versus 18.8%, P=0.43). Forward-flow hemodynamics were improved following both procedures, with effective orifice area significantly more improved after TAVR than SAVR (effective orifice area, 1.7 versus 1.4 cm(2) at 3 months). Mean valve gradients were similar after TAVR and SAVR. When patients were categorized according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) (<4% versus ≥4%), there was no statistically significant difference for TAVR and SAVR groups in the composite outcome for low-risk (14.7%, 95% confidence interval, 8.3-21.2 versus 16.8%; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-23.8; P=0.58) or intermediate-risk patients (21.1% versus 27.1%; P=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Two-year results from the NOTION trial demonstrate the continuing safety and effectiveness of TAVR in lower-risk patients. Longer-term data are needed to verify the durability of this procedure in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01057173.
Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/métodos , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/métodos , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/mortalidad , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Dinamarca , Ecocardiografía , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/instrumentación , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/mortalidad , Hemodinámica , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Infarto del Miocardio/etiología , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Suecia , Factores de Tiempo , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/efectos adversos , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/instrumentación , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/mortalidad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain high-risk surgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. It is unknown whether TAVR can be safely introduced to lower-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: The NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial) randomized clinical trial compared TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in an all-comers patient cohort. METHODS: Patients ≥ 70 years old with severe aortic valve stenosis and no significant coronary artery disease were randomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus SAVR. The primary outcome was the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were randomized at 3 Nordic centers. Mean age was 79.1 years, and 81.8% were considered low-risk patients. In the intention-to-treat population, no significant difference in the primary endpoint was found (13.1% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.43 for superiority). The result did not change in the as-treated population. No difference in the rate of cardiovascular death or prosthesis reintervention was found. Compared with SAVR-treated patients, TAVR-treated patients had more conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker implantation, larger improvement in effective orifice area, more total aortic valve regurgitation, and higher New York Heart Association functional class at 1 year. SAVR-treated patients had more major or life-threatening bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury (stage II or III), and new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation at 30 days than did TAVR-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the NOTION trial, no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR was found for the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or MI after 1 year. (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial [NOTION]; NCT01057173).