TY - JOUR T1 - The Authors' reply JF - Heart JO - Heart SP - 1033 LP - 1034 DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301886 VL - 98 IS - 13 AU - Maureen Watt AU - Stuart Mealing AU - Mark Sculpher AU - James Eaton AU - Pascale Brasseur AU - Rachele Busca AU - Stephen Palmer AU - Neil Moat AU - Nicolo Piazza Y1 - 2012/07/01 UR - http://heart.bmj.com/content/98/13/1033.abstract N2 - The Authors' reply We agree that it is important for all data relating to the PARTNER3 trial to be made available to inform decisions about the most cost effective management of aortic stenosis. However, in their critique of our model1 Neyt et al2 are correct in that we were only able to take into account evidence available when we undertook our analysis. At that point (our manuscript was submitted to Heart in May 2011) the only PARTNER trial data in the public domain were those published by Leon et al together with its supplementary appendix.3 Having no links with Edwards Lifesciences, we had no access to unpublished PARTNER trial data.Neyt et al comment that, in the ‘Continued Access’ trial, 1-year mortality with transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) was worse than in the control arm. Interpreting these data requires further information on the study design and the patients recruited, and this does not seem to be … ER -