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

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
PARTNER 3 Trial(n=950)
PARTNER IIA Trial (n=938)
PARTNER IA Trial (n=657)
KCCQ Score
Previous CABG
Permanent PPM

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.

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 TAVI 4

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

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

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.

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

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 & 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 HVD.11

Check our latest articles

20 Years of TAVI – Achieving comprehensive patient management
Oct 2022 Read more
Key diagnostic steps in aortic stenosis (AS) echocardiography
Jun 2022 Read more

Stay informed with our newsletter

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


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

Help us create better content with 3 short questions.

Content relating to is intended for healthcare professionals. Click OK to confirm you are a healthcare professional and proceed.
Skip to content