Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 6;20(2):1–121.

Table 6:

Atrial Fibrillation

Author, Year N (TAVI/SAVR) Atrial Fibrillation
30 Days 1 Year 2 Years
Full Cohort
Reardon et al, 201719 Percentageb Not reported Not reported
SURTAVI, mITTa TAVI: 12.9
1,660 (864/796) SAVR: 43.4
95% Crl for difference:
−34.7 to −26.4
Leon et al, 201610 New AF, KM estimate n (%)d New AF, KM estimate n (%)d New AF, KM estimate n (%)d
PARTNER 2, ITTc TAVI: 91 (9.1) TAVI: 100 (10.1) TAVI: 110 (11.3)
2,032 (1,011/1,021) SAVR: 265 (26.4) SAVR: 272 (27.2) SAVR: 273 (27.3)
P < .001 P < .001 P<.001
Transfemoral Cohort
Leon et al, 201610 New AF, KM estimate n (%)d New AF, KM estimate n (%)d New AF, KM estimate n (%)d
PARTNER 2, ITTc TAVI: 38 (4.9) TAVI: 45 (5.9) TAVI: 55 (7.4)
1,550 (775/775) SAVR: 204 (26.7) SAVR: 210 (27.6) SAVR: 211 (27.8)
P < .001 P < .001 P<.001
Transthoracic Cohort
Leon et al, 201610 New AF, KM estimate n (%)d New AF, KM estimate n (%)d New AF, KM estimate n (%)d
PARTNER 2, ITTc TAVI: 53 (22.8) TAVI: 55 (23.8) TAVI: 55 (23.8)
482 (236/246) SAVR: 61 (25.4) SAVR: 62 (25.9) SAVR: 62 (25.9)
P = .50 P = .60 P = .60

Abbreviations: AF, atrial fibrillation; CrI, credible interval; KM, Kaplan–Meier; SAVR, surgical aortic valve replacement; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

a

mITT analysis refers to patients in whom the TAVI or SAVR procedure was at least attempted.

b

Calculated by means of Bayesian analyses.

c

ITT analysis includes all patients randomized to receive either TAVI or SAVR

d

The percentages provided are Kaplan–Meier estimates at the specific time point and do not necessarily equal the number of patients who experienced the event divided by the total number of patients in the treatment group at the given time point.