The German Aortic Valve Registry: 1-year results from 13 680 patients with aortic valve disease†

Abstract

Conventional AVR surgery yields excellent results after 1 year in lower-risk patients. Catheter-based AVR is a good alternative in high-risk and elderly patients.

Favorable Clinical Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Japanese Patients ― First Report From the Post-Approval K-TAVI Registry ―

“…[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] In Japan, reimbursement of TAVI was approved in October 2013. However, only limited data on TAVI are currently available, and its efficacy and safety in Japanese patients have not yet been sufficiently investigated.…”

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

“…The mean patient age in the TAVI group was 81.5 years, and the STS score was 5.8% in each group. This study showed no differences in the rate of a combined endpoint that included allcause mortality and stroke [15]. In patients treated using the femoral approach, a statistically significant lower rate of the combined endpoint was shown compared to surgical treatment (HR = 0.79, p = 0.05, intentiontotreat) [7].…”

“…The prospective German GARY registry showed compa rable mortality with SAVR and TAVI in higherrisk groups but lower mortality with SAVR in lowrisk groups [15].…”

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Expert Consensus of the Association of Cardiovascular Interventions of the Polish Cardiac Society and the Polish Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgeons, approved by the Board of the Polish Cardiac Society…

“…Two-year mortality and stroke rates were comparable in the two treatment arms (9.8% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.54 and 5.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.46, respectively) [33,34]. With these results in mind, data of the prospective German GARY registry observed a comparable mortality in high-risk patients undergoing SAVR and TAVI, while a lower mortality was reported in SAVR vs. TAVI in low-risk patient groups [31].…”

“…The mean age was 81 years, and STS was 5.8% in each group. The composite endpoint (all-cause mortality and stroke) did not differ between SAVR and TAVI [31]. In the transfemoral TAVI group, the risk of composite endpoint occurrence was significantly smaller in comparison to the SAVR group (HR = 0.79, p = 0.05, intention-to-treat) [7].…”