TCT 2018 | SOLVE-TAVI: Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Valves and General vs. Local Anesthesia in One Study

This prospective, randomized, multicenter study included 447 patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate or high surgical risk randomized in a 2×2 factorial design to general vs. conscious sedation with local anesthesia and also to receiving the Sapien 3 valve (balloon-expandable) vs. CoreValve Evolut R (self-expandable).

TCT 2018 | SOLVE-TAVI: autoexpandible vs balón expandible y anestesia general vs local en un mismo estudioPrimary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate or severe paravalvular leak and definite pacemaker implantation at 30 days.

 

This occurred in 27.2% of the Evolut R group vs. 26.1% of the Sapien 3 group, which resulted in equivalent outcomes. On separate assessment of each point, pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak rates resulted similar, with a higher rate of stroke with Sapien 3, though this study does not have statistical power to determine differences on this point.

 

End point for type of anesthesia combined death, stroke, infarction, infection and acute kidney failure at 30 days. This happened in 27% of patients in the local anesthesia group vs. 25.5% in the general anesthesia group. Again, outcomes were equivalent, though general anesthesia required more inotropic agents, with no effect on procedural time, valve related outcomes or other clinical factors. Mean hospitalization stay was 9 days, which seems too long, regardless type of anesthesia.

 

Original title: SOLVE-TAVI Trial: A 2×2 Randomized Trial of Self-Expandable vs Balloon-Expandable Valves and General vs Local Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Presenter: Holger Thiele.

 

SOLVE-TAVI presentación


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Transradial Aortic Valvuloplasty: Is Minimalism Worth It?

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has historically been used either as a bridge strategy, an assessment tool, or even palliative treatment in severe aortic stenosis...

Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Cohort Study with Continuous Implantable Cardiac Monitoring

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a recognized complication following percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), with reported incidences of up to 30% during...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....