OBJECTIVES: This study sought to perform a weighted meta-analysis to determine the rates of major outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) definitions and to evaluate their current use in the literature. BACKGROUND: Recently, the published VARC definitions have helped to add uniformity to reporting outcomes after TAVR. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from January 1, 2011, through October 12, 2011, was conducted using predefined criteria. We included studies reporting at least 1 outcome using VARC definitions. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies including 3,519 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate rates of outcomes were determined according to VARC's definitions: device success, 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.7% to 95.5%); all-cause 30-day mortality, 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5% to 11.1%); myocardial infarction, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.2% to 2.0%); acute kidney injury stage II/III, 7.5% (95% CI: 5.1% to 11.4%); life-threatening bleeding, 15.6% (95% CI: 11.7% to 20.7%); major vascular complications, 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6% to 16.4%); major stroke, 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1% to 4.8%); and new permanent pacemaker implantation, 13.9% (95% CI: 10.6% to 18.9%). Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis use was associated with a significant higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation compared with the Edwards prosthesis (28.9% [95% CI: 23.0% to 36.0%] vs. 4.9% [95% CI: 3.9% to 6.2%], p < 0.0001). The 30-day safety composite endpoint rate was 32.7% (95% CI: 27.5% to 38.8%) and the 1-year total mortality rate was 22.1% (95% CI: 17.9% to 26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: VARC definitions have already been used by the TAVR clinical research community, establishing a new standard for reporting clinical outcomes. Future revisions of the VARC definitions are needed based on evolving TAVR clinical experiences.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to perform a weighted meta-analysis to determine the rates of major outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) definitions and to evaluate their current use in the literature. BACKGROUND: Recently, the published VARC definitions have helped to add uniformity to reporting outcomes after TAVR. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from January 1, 2011, through October 12, 2011, was conducted using predefined criteria. We included studies reporting at least 1 outcome using VARC definitions. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies including 3,519 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate rates of outcomes were determined according to VARC's definitions: device success, 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.7% to 95.5%); all-cause 30-day mortality, 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5% to 11.1%); myocardial infarction, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.2% to 2.0%); acute kidney injury stage II/III, 7.5% (95% CI: 5.1% to 11.4%); life-threatening bleeding, 15.6% (95% CI: 11.7% to 20.7%); major vascular complications, 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6% to 16.4%); major stroke, 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1% to 4.8%); and new permanent pacemaker implantation, 13.9% (95% CI: 10.6% to 18.9%). Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis use was associated with a significant higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation compared with the Edwards prosthesis (28.9% [95% CI: 23.0% to 36.0%] vs. 4.9% [95% CI: 3.9% to 6.2%], p < 0.0001). The 30-day safety composite endpoint rate was 32.7% (95% CI: 27.5% to 38.8%) and the 1-year total mortality rate was 22.1% (95% CI: 17.9% to 26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: VARC definitions have already been used by the TAVR clinical research community, establishing a new standard for reporting clinical outcomes. Future revisions of the VARC definitions are needed based on evolving TAVR clinical experiences.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M Gutberlet; B Foldyna; M Grothoff; C Lücke; F Riese; S Nitzsche; M Haensig; K von Aspern; D Holzhey; H Thiele; G Schuler; A Linke; F-W Mohr; L Lehmkuhl Journal: Radiologe Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 0.635