Analysis is First to Show Significant Advantages for Transcatheter Aortic Valve in Patients with Prior CABG
DUBLIN and SAN DIEGO - Medtronic plc (NYSE: MDT) revealed new one-year clinical data showing that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the self-expanding CoreValve® System offers advantages in survival and safety compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high risk aortic stenosis patients who have previously undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. This is the first analysis to evaluate a self-expanding valve in prior-CABG patients within a trial of TAVR and SAVR.
Presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the post-hoc sub-analysis of the High Risk Study of the CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial included 226 prior-CABG patients who were either treated with TAVR (N=115) or SAVR (N=111).
At one year, there was a significant difference favoring TAVR with CoreValve in the combined primary study endpoint of all-cause mortality or major stroke with an incidence of 11.4 percent in the TAVR group vs. 21.8 percent in the SAVR group (p=0.04). Additionally, there was a trend towards a survival advantage for patients who received TAVR with CoreValve compared to SAVR (90.4 percent vs. 81.9 percent, respectively; p=0.06) and lower rates of cardiovascular mortality (7.0 percent vs. 13.8 percent, respectively; p=0.10).
"Prior to now, the treatment of this patient population has been confounded by the lack of data showing clinical benefit of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement for prior-CABG aortic stenosis patients, who may have increased risks of mortality and morbidity with re-operation.," said John Conte, M.D., professor of surgery at The Johns Hopkins Hospital who presented the data at STS. "The CoreValve System demonstrated important clinical advantages including faster recovery compared to surgical valve replacement offering heart teams an alternative to open heart surgery for this patient population."
The analysis also showed reduced complications for patients receiving TAVR vs. SAVR at one year, including lower rates of acute kidney injury (5.3 percent vs. 16.3 percent; p=0.007), life threatening or disabling bleeding (14.0 percent vs. 43.5 percent; p<0.001), as well as lower MACCE with the TAVR-treated patients (17.5 percent vs. 28.1 percent, respectively; p=0.05). There was no difference in the overall rates of all stroke (10.6 percent vs. 14.3 percent, p=<0.40) or major stroke (8.8 percent vs. 6.6 percent; p=<0.54) between the two patient groups
