Against the backdrop of rising cardiovascular disease statistics worldwide, more than 28 million people currently live with heart valve disease. Along with the development of treatment methods, a question is increasingly coming to the forefront: which approach provides better long-term outcomes, especially in relatively younger and low-risk patients — traditional open surgery or a minimally invasive, non-surgical procedure performed via catheter (TAVR)?
A large-scale clinical trial (PARTNER 3) published in the journal JAMA Cardiology, which followed 1,000 low-risk patients for 7 years, revealed noteworthy parallels between the two methods. According to the study results, both approaches demonstrated excellent long-term efficacy. The rates of valve deterioration, dysfunction, and the need for repeat intervention were nearly identical in both groups. By the end of the follow-up, approximately 75% of participants in both cases were alive and their transplanted valve was functioning properly.
Despite similar long-term reliability, researchers did observe one important difference: the risk of blood clot formation on the valve was significantly higher after the minimally invasive procedure (TAVR), accounting for 5.2% of patients, whereas in the open surgery group this rate was only 0.9%.
According to the researchers, these results confirm that the minimally invasive method is a fully-fledged and reliable alternative to traditional open surgery, even for low-risk patients. However, if the choice is made in favor of transcatheter implantation, patients will require closer monitoring in the subsequent period so that doctors can detect and manage early signs of potential thrombosis in a timely manner.
