The target population enrolled in the study includes patients with aortic-valve stenosis at risk to severe valve obstruction who have had TAVI or standard surgical procedure of their aortic valve with or without coronary artery by pass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Individuals were adequately treated per applicable standards, including for coronary artery disease (CAD), left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, AVS, and heart failure (HF). Patients enrolled in the studies were New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II, III, or outpatient NYHA IV.~Three groups of patients are included in the study. Patients who were managed with TAVI, patients who received AVR with conventional stented xenograft and recipients of AVR undergoing surgery with the use of sutureless aortic valve.~we calculated that a total of 649 patients per group would be needed for 90% power to show an absolute between-groups difference of 10% in the primary outcome at a two-sided alpha level of 0.02 (corrected alpha level to take into account multiple comparison between 3 groups). In this exhaustive study between 2011 and 2021, we hope to include a total of 6700 patients (2800 in the TAVI group, 3200 patients who received AVR with conventional stented xenograft and 700 patients with the use of sutureless aortic valve).
The mechanical intervention is treating aortic valve stenosis (AVS) which may be performed using the standard open surgical approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The key question of this study is to establish the difference in all-cause and cause-specific (cardiac vs noncardiac) mortality, all hospitalizations for heart failure within 24 months of follow-up, left ventricular reverse remodeling after adjustment for death, as assessed by means of the left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), in patients who received the TAVI vs the standard surgical procedure for AVS.