Praveen Indraratna1, David H Tian2, Tristan D Yan3, Mathew P Doyle4, Christopher Cao5. 1. The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; Department of Cardiology, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 2. The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; Department of Cardiothoracic, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 5. The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: drchriscao@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a widely utilized method of treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis. The present meta-analysis included all published relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of TAVI compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHOD: Nine electronic databases were comprehensively searched. Eligible studies were required to be randomized controlled trials which reported comparative endpoints on both TAVI and AVR. RESULTS: Five published RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 3828 patients were studied. The overall mortality and stroke rates at 30days and 1year were not significantly different between TAVI and AVR. Patients undergoing TAVI were more likely to experience vascular complications, aortic regurgitation and permanent pacemaker insertion, however, they were less likely to encounter acute renal failure and major haemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that TAVI is a safe and efficacious alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in judiciously selected patients.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a widely utilized method of treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis. The present meta-analysis included all published relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of TAVI compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHOD: Nine electronic databases were comprehensively searched. Eligible studies were required to be randomized controlled trials which reported comparative endpoints on both TAVI and AVR. RESULTS: Five published RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 3828 patients were studied. The overall mortality and stroke rates at 30days and 1year were not significantly different between TAVI and AVR. Patients undergoing TAVI were more likely to experience vascular complications, aortic regurgitation and permanent pacemaker insertion, however, they were less likely to encounter acute renal failure and major haemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that TAVI is a safe and efficacious alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in judiciously selected patients.
Authors: Ka Yan Lam; Naomi Timmermans; Ferdi Akca; Erwin Tan; Niels J Verberkmoes; Kim de Kort; Mohamed Soliman-Hamad; Albert H M van Straten Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2021-05-10
Authors: Róbert Novotný; Jaroslav Hlubocký; Tomáš Kovárník; Petr Mitáš; Zuzana Hlubocka; Jan Rulíšek; Sevim Ismihan Gulmez; Shubjiwan Kaur Ghotra; Jaroslav Lindner Journal: Case Rep Cardiol Date: 2017-04-30