Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

Five-Year Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes from the Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) Randomized Clinical Trial in Lower Surgical Risk Patients

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Accelerated treatment of endocarditis-The POET II trial: Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Early and late risk of ischemic stroke after TAVR as compared to a nationwide background population

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Valve regurgitation in patients surviving endocarditis and the subsequent risk of heart failure

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. A novel supra-annular plane to predict TAVI prosthesis anchoring in raphe-type bicuspid aortic valve disease: the LIRA plane

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) was designed to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients 70 years or older with isolated severe aortic valve stenosis. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes are presented after 5 years.

METHODS: Patients were enrolled at three Nordic centers and randomized 1:1 to TAVR using the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis (n=145) or SAVR using any stented bio-prostheses (n=135). The primary composite outcome was the rate of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 1 year defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.

RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar. The mean age was 79.1±4.8 years and mean STS-PROM score was 3.0%±1.7%. After 5 years, there were no differences between TAVR and SAVR in the composite outcome (Kaplan-Meier estimates 38.0% vs. 36.3%, log-rank test p=0.86) or any of its components. TAVR patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.7 cm2 vs. 1.2 cm2, p<0.001) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (8.2 mm Hg vs. 13.7 mm Hg, p<0.001), both unchanged over time. More TAVR patients had moderate/severe total aortic regurgitation (8.2% vs. 0.0%, p<0.001) and a new pacemaker (43.7% vs. 8.7%, p<0.001). Four patients had prosthetic re-intervention and no difference was found for functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: These are currently the longest follow-up data comparing TAVR and SAVR in lower risk patients, demonstrating no statistical difference for major clinical outcomes 5 years after TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared to SAVR. Higher rates of prosthetic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation were seen after TAVR.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: Unique identifier: NCT01057173.

Original languageEnglish
Issue number24
Pages (from-to)2714-2723
Publication statusPublished - 11 Jun 2019

    Research areas

  • Aortic valve stenosis, Follow-up studies, Surgical aortic valve replacement, Surgical low-risk, Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

ID: 58442845