Critical review · Jun 21, 2026
PARTNER 2A at 10 years: TAVI versus surgery at intermediate risk
Thourani VH, von Stein P, Mack MJ, Nazif TM, Babaliaros V, Alkhouli M, et al. 10-Year Randomized Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Aortic Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(23):3309-3321.
doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.03.169 · Randomized clinical trial, 10-year follow-up (57 centers; NCT01314313), n = 1,910
Summary
Between 2011 and 2013, PARTNER 2A randomized patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk to TAVI with SAPIEN XT or surgery. In the valve implant population, 974 received TAVI and 936 surgery. Mean age 81.6 years, mean STS score 5.8%.
Ten-year follow-up required reconsent at 5 years. Mortality was completed with vital status sweeps of public records, reaching about 90% completeness.
| 10-year outcome | TAVI | Surgery |
|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality | 86.1% | 82.8% |
| Reintervention (cumulative incidence) | 6.3% | 1.6% |
| Reintervention (Kaplan–Meier, sensitivity) | 16.1% | 2.7% |
Mortality: HR 1.13 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.25). The excess was confined to transapical/transaortic access; transfemoral mortality was similar (83.9% vs 82.1%). Kaplan–Meier reintervention: HR 4.26.
Strengths
- Randomized TAVI-versus-surgery trial followed for a decade, in an elderly intermediate-risk cohort.
- Reintervention analyzed as a cumulative incidence function with Gray’s test, treating death as a competing risk. This is the right estimand in a cohort with about 83% ten-year mortality.
- The naive Kaplan–Meier was reported as a sensitivity analysis, flagged as overstating risk.
- Mortality recovered to about 90% completeness through vital status sweeps.
- The authors describe their own follow-up limitations.
Methodological issues
- Nonfatal outcomes outside the vital status sweep. Reintervention relies on the on-study cohort alone. At year 6, mortality has about 380/396 patients at risk per arm; reintervention has 174/159. After the 5-year reconsent, durability is estimated on less than half the randomized population.
- Differential and possibly informative dropout. Among surgical patients alive at 5 years, 59.3% (270/455) declined reconsent. They left during years 5 to 10, the window in which bioprosthetic failure is most likely. Dropout was higher with surgery. If reconsent tracks health, censoring is informative and can bias the cumulative incidence itself, in favor of surgery.
- Few events in the surgical arm. The 1.6% comes from eight events, three of them in the late window.
- Fragile result. I reconstructed the published curves (Aalen–Johansen, reproducing 6.3% / 1.6% and a p-value close to the reported Gray’s test). About ten unobserved surgical reinterventions erase significance; about 25 reach parity. Across the roughly 425 surgical study-leavers, ten events is a reintervention rate of 2% to 4%.
- Surgical rate probably underestimated. About 15% of the surgical valves were Mitroflow and Trifecta, both with known early failure; Mitroflow reintervention at 10 years reached about 22%. In NOTION at 10 years, with near-complete follow-up, surgical severe structural deterioration was about 10% and bioprosthetic valve failure about 14%. Reintervention also undercounts failure, because frail octogenarians are often not reoperated, as the authors note.
Opinion
The paper is methodologically sound and delivers long-term evidence the field lacked. Its two main results point the same way but carry different weight.
Mortality holds: HR 1.13 (1.02 to 1.25), about 90% complete, concordant in the intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis. Its nuances are matters of reading: RMST over years 5 to 10 was not significant, and the excess was confined to transapical/transaortic access.
The direction of the durability signal is plausible. SAPIEN XT has features that predict more reintervention: a second-generation frame, no CT-based sizing and no 29 mm valve for the first 42.5% of enrollment. A four-fold relative increase resting on eight events, in an arm that lost about 45% of its follow-up non-randomly, does not define the magnitude. To me, 1.6% is a floor, computed on a partly observed denominator.