Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain high-risk surgical patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. It is unknown whether TAVR can be safely introduced to lower-risk patients. OBJECTIVES The NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial) randomized clinical trial compared TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in an all-comers patient cohort. METHODS Patients >= 70 years old with severe aortic valve stenosis and no significant coronary artery disease were randomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus SAVR. The primary outcome was the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. RESULTS A total of 280 patients were randomized at 3 Nordic centers. Mean age was 79.1 years, and 81.8% were considered low-risk patients. In the intention-to-treat population, no significant difference in the primary endpoint was found (13.1% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.43 for superiority). The result did not change in the as-treated population. No difference in the rate of cardiovascular death or prosthesis reintervention was found. Compared with SAVR-treated patients, TAVR-treated patients had more conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker implantation, larger improvement in effective orifice area, more total aortic valve regurgitation, and higher New York Heart Association functional class at 1 year. SAVR-treated patients had more major or life-threatening bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury (stage II or III), and new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation at 30 days than did TAVR-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS In the NOTION trial, no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR was found for the composite rate of death from any cause, stroke, or MI after 1 year. (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.