BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been approved in patients with high or prohibited surgical risk for surgery for treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Prospective studies examining the benefits of TAVR in intermediate risk patients are ongoing. Other smaller studies including lower risk patients have been conducted, but further meta-analysis of these studies is required to draw more broad comparisons. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted using standard methodology to search for clinical trials and observational studies including intermediate risk patients. We limited our meta-analysis to studies matching patient populations by propensity scores or randomization and examined clinical outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). RESULTS: Analysis of the TAVR and SAVR cohorts revealed no significant differences in the outcomes of 30-day [OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.57, 1.26)] or 1-year mortality [OR (95% CI): 0.96 (0.75, 1.23)]. A trend towards benefit with TAVR was noted in terms of neurological events and myocardial infarction (MI) without statistical significance. A statistically significant decrease in risk of post-procedural acute renal failure in the TAVR group [OR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.27, 0.99)] was observed, but so was a significantly higher rate of pacemaker implantations for the TAVR group [OR (95% CI): 6.51 (3.23, 13.12)]. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in intermediate risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, the risk of mortality, neurological outcomes, and MI do not appear to be significantly different between TAVR and SAVR. However, there appears to be a significant reduction in risk of acute renal failure at the expense of an increased risk of requiring a permanent pacemaker in low and intermediate risk patients undergoing TAVR compared to SAVR.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been approved in patients with high or prohibited surgical risk for surgery for treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Prospective studies examining the benefits of TAVR in intermediate risk patients are ongoing. Other smaller studies including lower risk patients have been conducted, but further meta-analysis of these studies is required to draw more broad comparisons. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted using standard methodology to search for clinical trials and observational studies including intermediate risk patients. We limited our meta-analysis to studies matching patient populations by propensity scores or randomization and examined clinical outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). RESULTS: Analysis of the TAVR and SAVR cohorts revealed no significant differences in the outcomes of 30-day [OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.57, 1.26)] or 1-year mortality [OR (95% CI): 0.96 (0.75, 1.23)]. A trend towards benefit with TAVR was noted in terms of neurological events and myocardial infarction (MI) without statistical significance. A statistically significant decrease in risk of post-procedural acute renal failure in the TAVR group [OR (95% CI): 0.52 (0.27, 0.99)] was observed, but so was a significantly higher rate of pacemaker implantations for the TAVR group [OR (95% CI): 6.51 (3.23, 13.12)]. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in intermediate risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, the risk of mortality, neurological outcomes, and MI do not appear to be significantly different between TAVR and SAVR. However, there appears to be a significant reduction in risk of acute renal failure at the expense of an increased risk of requiring a permanent pacemaker in low and intermediate risk patients undergoing TAVR compared to SAVR.
Authors: Gerhard Schymik; Martin Heimeshoff; Peter Bramlage; Tanja Herbinger; Alexander Würth; Lothar Pilz; Jan S Schymik; Rainer Wondraschek; Tim Süselbeck; Jan Gerhardus; Armin Luik; Bernd-Dieter Gonska; Panagiotis Tzamalis; Herbert Posival; Claus Schmitt; Holger Schröfel Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alain Cribier; Helene Eltchaninoff; Assaf Bash; Nicolas Borenstein; Christophe Tron; Fabrice Bauer; Genevieve Derumeaux; Frederic Anselme; François Laborde; Martin B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-12-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David H Adams; Jeffrey J Popma; Michael J Reardon; Steven J Yakubov; Joseph S Coselli; G Michael Deeb; Thomas G Gleason; Maurice Buchbinder; James Hermiller; Neal S Kleiman; Stan Chetcuti; John Heiser; William Merhi; George Zorn; Peter Tadros; Newell Robinson; George Petrossian; G Chad Hughes; J Kevin Harrison; John Conte; Brijeshwar Maini; Mubashir Mumtaz; Sharla Chenoweth; Jae K Oh Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sebastian A Iturra; Rakesh M Suri; Kevin L Greason; John M Stulak; Harold M Burkhart; Joseph A Dearani; Hartzell V Schaff Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Philippe Généreux; Susheel K Kodali; Philip Green; Jean-Michel Paradis; Benoit Daneault; Garvey Rene; Irene Hueter; Isaac Georges; Ajay Kirtane; Rebecca T Hahn; Craig Smith; Martin B Leon; Mathew R Williams Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Nicolo Piazza; Bindu Kalesan; Nicolas van Mieghem; Stuart Head; Peter Wenaweser; Thierry P Carrel; Sabine Bleiziffer; Peter P de Jaegere; Brigitta Gahl; Robert H Anderson; Arie-Pieter Kappetein; Ruediger Lange; Patrick W Serruys; Stephan Windecker; Peter Jüni Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Katrin Hemmann; Margarita Sirotina; Salvatore De Rosa; Joachim R Ehrlich; Henrik Fox; Johannes Weber; Anton Moritz; Andreas M Zeiher; Ilona Hofmann; Volker Schächinger; Mirko Doss; Horst Sievert; Stephan Fichtlscherer; Ralf Lehmann Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2013-05-03