How can TAVI benefit your low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS) now and in the future?

Supported by proven results from PARTNER 3,1 low-risk patients with sAS now have the opportunity for TAVI. As these patients are usually younger and healthier than those in higher risk categories,1-6 further considerations for this group include valve durability and valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures that support their longer-term management.

Now you can give your low-risk AS patients a chance at the lowest-risk option

  • TAVI offers the low-risk indication and proven superiority* over surgery (sAVR)

Low risk patients are younger and healthier and, for them, sAS is their primary concern

Low-risk patients are healthier1

Low-risk patients are younger1

Low-risk patients have fewer comorbidities

Baseline patient characteristics of AS treated populations

CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CAD, coronary artery disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; KCCQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PPM, permanent pacemaker; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

  • With the low-risk indication and proven superiority over sAVR* nothing stands in the way of a TAVI evaluation for your patients1

Only SAPIEN 3 TAVI was proven superior to surgery on the primary endpoints (all-cause death, all-stroke, or rehospitalisation)1,7

PARTNER 3 Low-Risk Trial

Primary Endpoint: Baseline Death, Stroke or Rehospitalisation

Change from baseline in KCCQ-OS score at 1 month, 6 months and 1 year with SAPIEN 3 TAVI4

PARTNER 3 Low-Risk Trial

Primary Endpoint: Baseline Death, Stroke or Rehospitalisation

KCCQ-OS, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Overall Summary.

  • With half-a-million transcatheter heart valve implants and 18 years of experience, TAVI has evolved to deliver faster procedures, shorter hospital stays, less rehospitalisation, and low pacemaker rates1
  • Additionally, SAPIEN 3 TAVI has demonstrated substantially improved early and sustained QoL benefits in low-risk patients with sAS at 1 month, 6 months and 1 year compared with sAVR†4

Proven to be superior to surgery on primary end points in PARTNER 3, refer your low-risk patients with sAS for TAVI evaluation

See the data

Valve durability and future treatment options are a key consideration in low-risk patients with sAS and longer life expectancies8-10

Especially in younger and healthier AS patients, valve durability and future treatment options should be considered.

  • 5 year-data from PARTNER 2S3i shows long-term durability with SAPIEN 3 TAVI is equivalent to surgery, with:11
    • Sustained improvements in haemodynamic performance
    • Similar rates of reintervention for TAVI vs sAVR§
    • Similar rates of haemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) for TAVI vs sAVR

Keep your low-risk patients active with a TAVI that is supported by real-world durability data

  • ViV is a viable alternative to redo (reoperative) surgery for degenerate sAVR or TAVI10
  • Compared with redo surgery, ViV TAVI is associated with:12
    • Shorter stays in ICU
    • Reduced time on ventilation
    • Lower transfusion requirements
  • ViV TAVI is associated with lower early mortality and morbidity, and increased survival at 5 years compared with redo (reoperative) surgery13

No matter what their future brings, know they have the option of ViV TAVI

* The PARTNER 3 Trial proved SAPIEN 3 TAVI is superior to surgery for the primary endpoint and multiple pre-specified secondary endpoints.1
1 month = 16.0 points; 95% CI 14.2 to 17.8; p<0.001. 6 months = 2.6 points; 95% CI 1.0 to 4.3; p=0.002. 1 year = 1.8 points; 95% CI 0.1 to 3.5; p=0.033.4
45.9mmHg at baseline, 11.6mmHg at 1 Year, 11.6mmHg at 3 Years and 11.2mmHg at 5 Years. 11
§ 1.3% vs 0.8% for TAVI and sAVR, respectively. Odds ratio 0.60 (95% CI, 0.22-1.65; p = 0.31)11
0.63% vs 0.60% for rate of Stage 2 and 3 for TAVI and sAVR, respectively; p = 0.86. Stage 2 & 3 HVD defined as: +Δ mean gradient ≥ 10 mmHg and -Δ AVA ≥ 0.3 cm2 or ≥ 25%, -Δ DVI ≥ 0.1 or ≥ 20%, AND/OR ≥ 1 grade Δ transvalvular AR with final grade ≥ moderate.11
# 0.63% vs 0.37% for TAVI and sAVR, respectively; p = 0.22. Bioprosthetic valve failure defined as: Re-intervention or death related to valve dysfunction, or severe (Stage 3) structural valve deterioration-related HVD11

Check our latest articles

View all articles

Stay informed with our newsletter

By providing your personal information, you agree to allow Edwards Lifesciences and its agents to use this information to communicate with you in the future, including information about services, events, and programs. Edwards Lifesciences and its agents will not sell, rent, or otherwise distribute your name and any personally identifiable information outside of Edwards Lifesciences and its agents, Edwards Lifesciences will use your information in accordance with the Edwards privacy policy.

Our monthly updates provide you the latest developments in TAVI and aortic stenosis.Read more


1 Mack MJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1695—1705 and supplementary material.
2 Leon MB, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1609—1620 and supplementary material.
3 Smith CR et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187—2198 and supplementary material.
4 Baron SJ, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(23):2833—2842.
5 Baron SJ, et al. JACC Cardiovascr Interv. 2018;11(12):1188—1198.
6 Reynolds MR, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60(6):548—558.
7 Leon MB & Mack MJ. PARTNER 3: Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis. Presented at: American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session (ACC 2019), New Orleans, LA, March 17, 2019.
8 Rodriquez-Gabella T, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(8):1013—1028.
9 Kuck K, et al. Cardiologist 2020;14: 182—204.
10  Sathananthan J, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97(3):E431—E437.
11 Kodali SK, et al. Presentation at the Transcatheter Valve Therapies (TVT) Summit virtual event: TVT Connect 2020. Available at: (accessed March 2021).
12 Silaschi M et al. Interactive Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;24(1):63—70.
13 Tam DY, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(6):765—774.

Medical device for professional use. For a listing of indications, contraindications, precautions, warnings, and potential adverse events, please refer to the Instructions for Use (consult where applicable).

PP--EU-2446 v2.0