DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00236L

Extended benefits of TAVR in young patients with low-intermediate risk score: proceed with care

Rajkumar Doshi, MD, MPH

I read with great interest the article “In-hospital outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in younger patients less than 75 years old: a propensity-matched comparison” by Eggebrecht et al1. The authors revealed similar in-hospital mortality and stroke rates in the propensity score-matched transfemoral-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patients. However, need for permanent pacemaker rates were fourfold higher with TF-TAVR. This study is of significant importance since the indications for TAVR have been increasing following the SURTAVI trial2.

I have a few concerns regarding this study. First, more low-risk patients were included in the SAVR group (95% versus 55%) prior to the matching. Second, after propensity score matching, the standardised difference was 78.7% between the groups (p<0.001) with almost double in the TF-TAVR group. This could be one of the reasons for comparable mortality with TF-TAVR and SAVR in this study. Third, other routes for performing TAVR have been expanding which may include direct-aortic, subclavian, or carotid approach. These alternatives could be associated with higher success rates and lower complication rates3. Finally, the type of valve is not mentioned in this article. Valve design has been improving to reduce paravalvular leak post TAVR4. Additionally, the prevalence of the anatomy of the valve (bicuspid or tricuspid) is not described in this paper. Although the prevalence of bicuspid valves is more common in these young patients5, the decision to perform TAVR should be carefully weighed, keeping all the benefits and risks in mind.

In conclusion, TAVR techniques are improving with its increasing indications. Young patients may receive benefits from TAVR; however, we need to determine best practices in relation to the benefits for our patients based on the observational database until more robust randomised control trial results are presented.

Conflict of interest statement

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

Volume 14 Number 4
Jul 20, 2018
Volume 14 Number 4
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

10.4244/EIJV14I1A4 May 20, 2018
TAVR in younger patients with aortic stenosis: anything new?
Mack MJ et al
free

10.4244/EIJV14I18A313 Apr 5, 2019
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at low surgical risk
Søndergaard L et al
free

10.4244/EIJV15I17A268 Apr 17, 2020
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonagenarians – old…but not obsolete!
Grube E and Sinning J
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00029 Jun 17, 2024
Role of leaflet modification in TAVI: to prevent coronary obstruction only or potentially a routine practice?
Rogers T and Lupu L
free

10.4244/EIJ-E-21-00010 Mar 18, 2022
TAVR under 70: is age just a number?
Ng VG et al
free
Trending articles
152.9

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01125 Oct 20, 2021
An upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Costa G et al
free
47.8

NEW INNOVATION

10.4244/EIJ-D-15-00467 Feb 20, 2018
Design and principle of operation of the HeartMate PHP (percutaneous heart pump)
Van Mieghem NM et al
free
39.1

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00558 Feb 6, 2023
Permanent pacemaker implantation and left bundle branch block with self-expanding valves – a SCOPE 2 subanalysis
Pellegrini C et al
free
38.95

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00912 Oct 7, 2024
Optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention
Almajid F et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved