BACKGROUNDPrevious trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aorticvalve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODSWe randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTSThe rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P = 0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan-Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.25). In the transfemoralaccess cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = 0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONSIn intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.) a bs tr ac t

No abstract

Patient ForumThe content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) / European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC/EACTS Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC and the EACTS. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC (

There is currently substantial confusion between the conceptual definition of the metabolic syndrome and the clinical screening parameters and cut-off values proposed by various organizations (NCEP-ATP III, IDF, WHO, etc) to identify individuals with the metabolic syndrome. Although it is clear that in vivo insulin resistance is a key abnormality associated with an atherogenic, prothrombotic, and inflammatory profile which has been named by some the “metabolic syndrome” or by others “syndrome X” or “insulin resistance syndrome”, it is more and more recognized that the most prevalent form of this constellation of metabolic abnormalities linked to insulin resistance is found in patients with abdominal obesity, especially with an excess of intra-abdominal or visceral adipose tissue. We have previously proposed that visceral obesity may represent a clinical intermediate phenotype reflecting the relative inability of subcutaneous adipose tissue to act as a protective metabolic sink for the clearance and storage of the extra energy derived from dietary triglycerides, leading to ectopic fat deposition in visceral adipose depots, skeletal muscle, liver, heart, etc. Thus, visceral obesity may partly be a marker of a dysmetabolic state and partly a cause of the metabolic syndrome. Although waist circumference is a better marker of abdominal fat accumulation than the body mass index, an elevated waistline alone is not sufficient to diagnose visceral obesity and we have proposed that an elevated fasting triglyceride concentration could represent, when waist circumference is increased, a simple clinical marker of excess visceral/ectopic fat. Finally, a clinical diagnosis of visceral obesity, insulin resistance, or of the metabolic syndrome is not sufficient to assess global risk of cardiovascular disease. To achieve this goal, physicians should first pay attention to the classical risk factors while also considering the additional risk resulting from the presence of abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome, such global risk being defined as cardiometabolic risk.