New PARTNER 3 update links TAVR to early benefits over SAVR
Low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis experience the full benefits of treatment more quickly after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) than they do after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), according to new data published in JACC.[1]
A recent analysis of PARTNER 3 from 2025 found that TAVR and SAVR were associated with comparable outcomes after seven years.[2] For this brand new substudy of that PARTNER 3 data, researchers wanted to learn more about how TAVR patients recover compared to SAVR patients.
“Given no evident difference in mortality between treatments, any meaningful differences in health status would be highly relevant to inform selection of an initial treatment strategy,” wrote first author Michael I. Brener, MD, an interventional cardiologist with Columbia University Medical Center, and colleagues.
Important context about PARTNER 3
PARTNER 3 has been one of cardiology’s most closely watched clinical trials for many years. Nearly 1,000 low-risk patients with a mean age of 73.5 years old were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either undergo TAVR with a balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve from Edwards Lifesciences, or SAVR with a surgical bioprosthetic valve.
When PARTNER 3 co-author Michael J. Mack, MD, medical director of cardiovascular surgery at Baylor Scott & White Health, presented his team’s seven-year update at TCT 2025 in San Francisco, he noted that the two treatments were associated with similar outcomes after seven years.
Key takeaways from this new analysis
With this new substudy of PARTNER 3 data, Brener et al. hoped to learn more about how the chosen treatment strategy influenced how patients recovered and how they felt following the procedure. For example, both TAVR and SAVR were linked to significant improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) assessments after seven years. After one month, however, TAVR was associated with a much higher KCCQ score that stayed higher through the first two years.
In addition, the authors found that the long-term health status benefit of TAVR appeared to be higher for patients who presented with reduced ejection fraction. No such difference was seen when categorizing patients by sex or the presence of atrial fibrillation.
“These findings highlight both the early advantage of a less-invasive approach and the sustained durability of symptom relief with either treatment strategy, providing a more complete understanding of the patient experience after valve replacement that can inform shared decision making,” the authors wrote.
Edwards did fund this analysis. Also, the group noted that these comparisons can only be applied to TAVR patients who received a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. The statistics may be different if comparing TAVR with a self-expanding valve to SAVR.
Click here to read the full study in JACC, an American College of Cardiology journal.
Michael has more than 19 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.