Ganesh Athappan1, R Dilip Gajulapalli2, Prasanna Sengodan1, Anju Bhardwaj1, Stephen G Ellis2, Lars Svensson2, Emin Murat Tuzcu2, Samir R Kapadia3. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart & Vascular Institute, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: kapadis@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study undertook a systematic review to establish and compare the risk of stroke between the 2 widely used approaches (transfemoral [TF] vs. transapical [TA]) and valve designs (CoreValve, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota vs. Edwards Valve, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid adoption and expansion in the use of TAVR. The technique is however far from perfect and requires further refinement to alleviate safety concerns that include stroke. METHODS: All studies reporting on the risk of stroke after TAVR were identified using an electronic search and pooled using established meta-analytical guidelines. RESULTS: 25 multicenter registries and 33 single-center studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post-TAVR between the TF and TA approach in multicenter (2.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4 to 3.4] vs. 2.8% [95% CI: 2.0 to 3.9]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 3.1 to 4.6] vs. 3.4% [95% CI: 2.5 to 4.5]). Similarly, there was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post TAVR between the CoreValve and Edwards Valve in multicenter (2.4% [95% CI: 1.9 to 3.2] vs. 3.0% [95% CI: 2.4 to 3.7]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 2.8 to 4.9] vs. 3.2% [95% CI: 2.4 to 4.3]). There was a decline in stroke risk with experience and technological advancement. There was no difference in the outcome of 30-day stroke between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the risk of 30-day stroke after TAVR is similar between the approaches and valve types. There has been a decline in stroke risk after TAVR with improvements in valve technology, patient selection, and operator experience.
OBJECTIVES: The study undertook a systematic review to establish and compare the risk of stroke between the 2 widely used approaches (transfemoral [TF] vs. transapical [TA]) and valve designs (CoreValve, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota vs. Edwards Valve, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid adoption and expansion in the use of TAVR. The technique is however far from perfect and requires further refinement to alleviate safety concerns that include stroke. METHODS: All studies reporting on the risk of stroke after TAVR were identified using an electronic search and pooled using established meta-analytical guidelines. RESULTS: 25 multicenter registries and 33 single-center studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post-TAVR between the TF and TA approach in multicenter (2.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4 to 3.4] vs. 2.8% [95% CI: 2.0 to 3.9]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 3.1 to 4.6] vs. 3.4% [95% CI: 2.5 to 4.5]). Similarly, there was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post TAVR between the CoreValve and Edwards Valve in multicenter (2.4% [95% CI: 1.9 to 3.2] vs. 3.0% [95% CI: 2.4 to 3.7]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 2.8 to 4.9] vs. 3.2% [95% CI: 2.4 to 4.3]). There was a decline in stroke risk with experience and technological advancement. There was no difference in the outcome of 30-day stroke between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the risk of 30-day stroke after TAVR is similar between the approaches and valve types. There has been a decline in stroke risk after TAVR with improvements in valve technology, patient selection, and operator experience.
Authors: Muhammad Hammadah; Mohammed Qintar; Steven E Nissen; Julie St John; Saqer Alkharabsheh; Motunrayo Mobolaji-Lawal; Femi Philip; Kiyoko Uno; Yu Kataoka; Brett Babb; Roman Poliszczuk; Samir R Kapadia; E Murat Tuzcu; Paul Schoenhagen; Stephen J Nicholls; Rishi Puri Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Vinod H Thourani; Sean M O'Brien; John J Kelly; David J Cohen; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Mack; David M Shahian; Frederick L Grover; John D Carroll; J Matthew Brennan; Jessica Forcillo; Suzanne V Arnold; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Susan Fitzgerald; David R Holmes; Joseph E Bavaria; Fred H Edwards Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Arash Salemi; Andrea De Micheli; Abdullah Aftab; Adham Elmously; Regis Chang; S Chiu Wong; Berhane M Worku Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2018-12-01