Get alerts of updates about «Treatment options for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis: rapid review for a patient decision aid»

How often would you like to receive alerts from fhi.no? (This affects all your alerts)
Do you also want alerts about:

The email address you register will only be used to send you these alerts. You can cancel your alerts and delete your email address at any time by following the link in the alerts you receive.
Read more about the privacy policy for fhi.no

You have subscribed to alerts about:

  • Treatment options for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis: rapid review for a patient decision aid

Note

Treatment options for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis: rapid review for a patient decision aid

Published

We were commissioned to summarize the evidence for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis, i.e. patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

Forside_Treatment options aortic stenosis.jpg

We were commissioned to summarize the evidence for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis, i.e. patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

Les på norsk
Facebook Twitter Send by e-mail
Downloadable as PDF. In English. Norwegian summary.

About this publication

  • Year: 2020
  • By: Norwegian Institute of Public Health
  • Authors Zinöcker S, Reinar LM, Eggen FR, Refsdal TL.
  • ISBN (digital): 978-82-8406-086-6
Order

Download:

Key message

Patients who suffer from severe aortic stenosis may require replacement of the aortic valve, either by open-heart surgery or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Conservative treatment, such as medical therapy or active surveillance of the patient, are therapeutic alternatives.

We were commissioned to summarize the evidence for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis, i.e. patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

We found evidence that TAVI compared with medical therapy:

  • Probably reduces all cause mortality at one and five years follow-up
  • Probably improves quality of life
  • Probably reduces moderate to severe cardiac symptoms up to three years follow-up
  • Probably reduces hospital admissions five years follow-up
  • Probably makes little or no difference in deaths at 30 days follow-up
  • Probably makes little or no difference in major bleeding events at three years follow-up
  • Probably makes little or no difference for the risk of myocardial infarction at three years follow-up
  • Probably makes little or no difference for the need of a permanent pacemaker at three years follow-up
  • Probably increases the risk of stroke at one year

 

We did not find any evidence comparing TAVI with active surveillance, or active surveillance compared with conservative treatment