Takeji Y, Taniguchi T, Morimoto T, Shirai S, Kitai T, Tabata H, Ohno N, Murai R, Osakada K, Murata K, Nakai M, Tsuneyoshi H, Tada T, Amano M, Watanabe S, Shiomi H, Watanabe H, Yoshikawa Y, Nishikawa R, Obayashi Y, Yamamoto K, Toyofuku M, Tatsushima S, Kanamori N, Miyake M, Nakayama H, Nagao K, Izuhara M, Nakatsuma K, Inoko M, Fujita T, Kimura M, Ishii M, Usami S, Nakazeki F, Togi K, Inuzuka Y, Ando K, Komiya T, Ono K, Minatoya K, and Kimura T
There was a scarcity of data evaluating variations in treatment approaches and clinical outcomes for severe aortic stenosis (AS) between medical centers with and without availability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Current study population was 2993 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 (2581 patients from 10 TAVI centers; 412 patients from 10 non-TAVI centers). TAVI centers more frequently opted for the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategy compared to non-TAVI centers (60% and 40%, P < 0.001). Among patients with the initial AVR strategy, TAVI centers disproportionately favored the initial TAVI strategy compared to non-TAVI centers (71% and 23%, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the risk of a composite of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization between TAVI and non-TAVI centers in the entire study population (cumulative 3-year incidence: 32.0% and 31.0%, P = 0.37; adjusted hazard ratios: 0.92, 95% confidence intervals: 0.74-1.15, P = 0.45) or in conservative, initial AVR, initial surgical AVR, and initial TAVI strata. A substantial disparity exists in the treatment strategies for patients with severe AS between TAVI and non-TAVI centers. TAVI centers tended to perform AVR, particularly TAVI, earlier and more frequently. However, there was no discernible distinction in the risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization between TAVI and non-TAVI centers. UMINID: UMIN000034169., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: K. Ono and K. Minatoya are members of Circulation Journal’s Editorial Team. S.S. reports clinical proctoring for Edwards Life Science, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular. H.S. reports receiving personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Daiichi Sankyo. T.M reports receiving lecturer fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Lifeline, Kowa, Kyocera, Novartis, and Toray and manuscript fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kowa, as well as being on the advisory board for Sanofi. T. Kimura reports being on the advisory board for Abbott Vascular and receiving grants from Edwards Lifescience, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Otsuka Parmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Kowa, Abiomed, Japan Academic Research Forum, NIPRO, W.L. Gore & Associates G.K., RPM Co., Ltd., CSL Behring, Pfizer R&D Japan G.K., and EP- CRSU Co., Ltd; and honoraria from MSD, Eisai, Edwards Lifescience, Ono Pharmaceutical, Tsumura, Medical Review, Kowa, Sanofi, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Lifescience, Toray, Astellas Amgen Biopharma, Astellas, AstraZeneca, OrbusNeich, MSD Life Science Foundation, Public Health Research Foundation, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Interscience, Philips, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Terumo, Novartis Pharma, HeartFlow Japan G.K., and CROSSCO Co. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. IRB information: The present study was approved by Kyoto University Graduate School and Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee, Reference number: R1501., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.)