TAVR Vs. SAVR in Intermediate-Risk Patients: What Influences Our Choice of Therapy

Research paper by Sasha Still, Molly Szerlip, Michael Mack

Indexed on: 10 Aug '18Published on: 09 Aug '18Published in: Current Cardiology Reports


To determine what influences patients and physicians to choose between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis.Advances in transcatheter valve technology, techniques, and trials demonstrating non-inferiority compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have led to expanded eligibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to both intermediate-risk patients in clinical practice and low-risk patients in pivotal trials. Since lower-risk individuals tend to be younger and good operative candidates, concerns of valve durability, procedure-related morbidity, and patient survivability require careful consideration. Results from the PARTNER II intermediate risk trials and SURTAVI trials have given us insight into the benefits and potential risks of both treatment modalities.In this article, we review the brief yet remarkable history of TAVR and discuss its role in the treatment of intermediate-surgical-risk patients.