Comparison of a complete percutaneous versus surgical approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization in patients at intermediate surgical risk results from the randomized SURTAVI trial

BACKGROUND: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been compared with the standard surgical approach. METHODS: The prospective SURTAVI trial (Safety and Efficiency Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement) enrolled intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis from 87 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe between June 2012 and June 2016. Complex coronary artery disease with SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial) >22 was an exclusion criterion. Patients were stratified according to the need for revascularization and then randomly assigned to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Patients assigned to revascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas those in the SAVR group had coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. RESULTS: Of 1660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revascularization. They had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score for mortality (4.8±1.7% versus 4.4±1.5%; P<0.01) and were more likely to be male (65.1% versus 54.2%; P<0.01) than the 1328 patients not assigned to revascularization. After randomization to treatment, there were 169 patients undergoing TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention, 163 patients undergoing SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting, 695 patients undergoing TAVR, and 633 patients undergoing SAVR. No significant difference in the rate of the primary end point was found between TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention and SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (16.0%; 95% CI, 11.1-22.9 versus 14.0%; 95% CI, 9.2-21.1; P=0.62), or between TAVR and SAVR (11.9%; 95% CI, 9.5-14.7 versus 12.3%; 95% CI, 9.8-15.4; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: For patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and noncomplex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score ≤22), a complete percutaneous approach of TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention is a reasonable alternative to SAVR and coronary artery bypass grafting.