Health Status after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk Results from the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial

CoreValve US Pivotal Trial Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1207-1217
Number of pages11
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume8
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 17 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve Stenosis
Aortic Valve
Surgical Instruments
Health Status
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Bioprosthesis
Survival
Insurance Benefits
Quality Improvement
Cardiomyopathies
Therapeutics
Quality of Life
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Safety

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{e5dca72d387845e2b086507c5cc86e90,
title = "Health Status after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk Results from the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial",
abstract = "Objectives This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve{\circledR} System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)",
author = "{CoreValve US Pivotal Trial Investigators} and Arnold, {Suzanne V.} and Reynolds, {Matthew R.} and Kaijun Wang and Magnuson, {Elizabeth A.} and Baron, {Suzanne J.} and Chinnakondepalli, {Khaja M.} and Reardon, {Michael J.} and Tadros, {Peter N.} and Zorn, {George L.} and Brij Maini and Mumtaz, {Mubashir A.} and John Brown and Robert Kipperman and Adams, {David H.} and Popma, {Jeffrey J.} and Cohen, {David J.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcin.2015.04.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "1207--1217",
journal = "JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1936-8798",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health Status after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk Results from the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial

AU - CoreValve US Pivotal Trial Investigators

AU - Arnold, Suzanne V.

AU - Reynolds, Matthew R.

AU - Wang, Kaijun

AU - Magnuson, Elizabeth A.

AU - Baron, Suzanne J.

AU - Chinnakondepalli, Khaja M.

AU - Reardon, Michael J.

AU - Tadros, Peter N.

AU - Zorn, George L.

AU - Maini, Brij

AU - Mumtaz, Mubashir A.

AU - Brown, John

AU - Kipperman, Robert

AU - Adams, David H.

AU - Popma, Jeffrey J.

AU - Cohen, David J.

PY - 2015/8/17

Y1 - 2015/8/17

N2 - Objectives This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)

AB - Objectives This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939498159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939498159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.04.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.04.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 26292584

AN - SCOPUS:84939498159

VL - 8

SP - 1207

EP - 1217

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1936-8798

IS - 9

ER -