BACKGROUND: Our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may not reduce the 30-day mortality rate over surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We performed an updated formal meta-analysis of TAVI vs AVR for reduction not only of early but also of late all-cause mortality in AS. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2012. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or adjusted observational comparative studies of TAVI vs AVR enrolling individuals with AS and reporting early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality, or both, as an outcome. Odds ratios or hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (adjusted odds ratios or hazard ratios in case of observational studies) were abstracted from each study. RESULTS: We identified two randomized trials and 15 adjusted observational studies enrolling 4,873 patients with severe AS. Pooled analysis suggested no significant difference in early (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.19) and midterm (3-month to 3-year) total mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.17) among patients assigned to TAVI vs AVR. Exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantively alter the overall result of our analysis. No evidence of significant publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of data of approximately 5,000 patients from 17 studies showed that TAVI is likely ineffective in reducing early and midterm all-cause mortality vs AVR in high-risk patients with AS.
BACKGROUND: Our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may not reduce the 30-day mortality rate over surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We performed an updated formal meta-analysis of TAVI vs AVR for reduction not only of early but also of late all-cause mortality in AS. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2012. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or adjusted observational comparative studies of TAVI vs AVR enrolling individuals with AS and reporting early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality, or both, as an outcome. Odds ratios or hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (adjusted odds ratios or hazard ratios in case of observational studies) were abstracted from each study. RESULTS: We identified two randomized trials and 15 adjusted observational studies enrolling 4,873 patients with severe AS. Pooled analysis suggested no significant difference in early (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.19) and midterm (3-month to 3-year) total mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.17) among patients assigned to TAVI vs AVR. Exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantively alter the overall result of our analysis. No evidence of significant publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of data of approximately 5,000 patients from 17 studies showed that TAVI is likely ineffective in reducing early and midterm all-cause mortality vs AVR in high-risk patients with AS.
Authors: Caroline A Kim; Suraj P Rasania; Jonathan Afilalo; Jeffrey J Popma; Lewis A Lipsitz; Dae Hyun Kim Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391