Literature DB >> 29388308

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low surgical risk: A meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score matched observational studies.

Guy Witberg1,2, Adi Lador1,2, Dafna Yahav2,3, Ran Kornowski1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is officially indicated for high risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients, the procedure is increasingly being performed in patients who are not at high surgical risk, including a substantial number of low risk patients. However, data on the benefit of TAVR in this patient population is limited.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with propensity score matching (PSM) of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients who are at low surgical risk. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and various procedural complications.
RESULTS: Six studies (2 RCTs and 4 PSM studies) totaling 3,484 patients were included. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 3 years (median 2 years). The short-term mortality was similar with either TAVR or SAVR (2.2% for TAVR and 2.6% for SAVR, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.41, P = 0.62), however, TAVR was associated with increased risk for intermediate-term mortality (17.2% for TAVR and 12.7% for SAVR, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.89, P = 0.006). In terms of periprocedural complications, TAVR was associated with reduced risk for bleeding and renal failure and an increase in vascular complications and Pacemaker implantation.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients who are at low surgical risk, TAVR seems to be associated with increased mortality risk. Until more data in this population is available, SAVR should remain the treatment of choice for these patients.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  surgical aortic valve replacement; surgical risk category; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29388308     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  13 in total

Review 1.  The Use of Biological Heart Valves.

Authors:  Sami Kueri; Fabian A Kari; Rafael Ayala Fuentes; Hans-Hinrich Sievers; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Wolfgang Bothe
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low and intermediate risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score matching observational studies.

Authors:  Jintao Fu; Mohammad Sharif Popal; Yulin Li; Guoqi Li; Yue Qi; Fang Fang; Joey S W Kwong; Bin You; Xu Meng; Jie Du
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Inflammatory and Biomechanical Drivers of Endothelial-Interstitial Interactions in Calcific Aortic Valve Disease.

Authors:  Katherine Driscoll; Alexander D Cruz; Jonathan T Butcher
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 17.367

4.  Preoperative Anemia and Postoperative Mortality in Patients with Aortic Stenosis Treated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Zhenqian Lv; Baoguo Zhou; Chunyue Yang; Haiping Wang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-09-27

5.  Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk.

Authors:  Marko P O Virtanen; Markku Eskola; Maina P Jalava; Annastiina Husso; Teemu Laakso; Matti Niemelä; Tuomas Ahvenvaara; Tuomas Tauriainen; Pasi Maaranen; Eeva-Maija Kinnunen; Sebastian Dahlbacka; Jussi Jaakkola; Tuija Vasankari; Juhani Airaksinen; Vesa Anttila; Stefano Rosato; Paola D'Errigo; Mikko Savontaus; Tatu Juvonen; Mika Laine; Timo Mäkikallio; Antti Valtola; Peter Raivio; Fausto Biancari
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-06-05

Review 6.  Assessing the safety and efficacy of TAVR compared to SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients with aortic valve stenosis: An overview of reviews.

Authors:  Roisin Mc Morrow; Christine Kriza; Patricia Urbán; Valeria Amenta; Juan Antonio Blasco Amaro; Dimitris Panidis; Hubert Chassaigne; Claudius Benedict Griesinger
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 4.164

7.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk.

Authors:  Ahmed A Kolkailah; Rami Doukky; Marc P Pelletier; Annabelle S Volgman; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Ashraf F Nabhan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-12-20

Review 8.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate- and Low-Risk Patients.

Authors:  Toby Rogers; Vinod H Thourani; Ron Waksman
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 9.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the patients with chronic liver disease: A mini-review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaochun Ma; Diming Zhao; Jinzhang Li; Dong Wei; Jianlin Zhang; Peidong Yuan; Xiangqian Kong; Jiwei Ma; Huibo Ma; Liangong Sun; Yuman Zhang; Qiqi Jiao; Zhengjun Wang; Haizhou Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Increased risk profile in the treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative aortic valve stenosis over the last 10 years.

Authors:  Jakub Baran; Jakub Podolec; Marek T Tomala; Bartłomiej Nawrotek; Łukasz Niewiara; Andrzej Gackowski; Tadeusz Przewłocki; Krzysztof Żmudka; Anna Kabłak-Ziembicka
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 1.426

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.